|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 05/31/2005 : 14:02:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
This thread is the first major study of Biblical contradictions that I've done.
Ok.
But you have read the thing, right? I'm no biblical scholar, nor literary scholar (just ask H.H.), but there are many contradictions that seem obvious to me. More importantly there are contradictions between what is recorded in the bible and what we know through our own efforts at gathering empirical evidence.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2005 : 19:15:02 [Permalink]
|
By the way, Hippy, this part of your sig:Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. Science is believing what you yourself observe and expiriment on. is pretty much incorrect on all points it tries to make. It denigrates devout religious faith by equating it with a childhood belief in the boogeyman, and limits the definition of 'science' so severely as to make the work of actual scientists unscientific. Of course, that definition of 'science' is the preferred definition of those anti-evolutionists who love to chant "you weren't there to see it happen, therefore you can't know it did," but who don't seem to have a problem with, for example, forensic crime-scene analysis. But they're just massive hypocrites, too busy lying for God to look after their own souls. What about you? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2005 : 07:42:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Cuneiformist:
The Lord most certainly has the ability to appear or speak to people; and since he's recorded as doing so, and He never said that He would stop, I see no reason to expect that He wouldn't if one followed Him close enough.
I guess I still have trouble with the Yahweh=Jesus thing, I guess. And I still don't see how someone can "love" with all one's heart a dead guy that one has never met, and that in theory only appears in visions, if at all. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2005 : 13:33:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
...it seems to me that Christian apologetics is both defending the validity of the Christian faith and determining the makeup of the Christian faith, i.e. "getting to the truth" as to what the Bible says entirely. So in answer to your question, I think it's both.
But there's no way it can be both (defending the faith and getting to the truth) unless there is never a substantial contradiction between the two. So which priority takes precedence when a conflict between the two arises? Or is it your opinion that the two positions are entirely harmonious?
quote:
I think that it is perfectly reasonable to say that the list of mighty men in 2 Samuel is an updated version of the list of mighty men in 1 Chronicles; especially since the former is placed 40 years (I think) after the latter. Furthermore, I would grant this method of rationalization to anyone.
Well in general I would grant this kind of rationalization on a tentative basis. Not being a scholarly type I cannot authoritavely say whether it is justified in this case. To me the salient point here is that given an apparent contradiction and a reasonable but unevidenced rationalization I do not immediately dissmiss either possibility. Why is it that you believe that the conflicting lists of mighty men are definitely not evidence of a biblical contradiction?
Also of note, I see that in one passage (1 Chr. 11:11) the chief of David's capitans (Jashobeam, an Hachmonite), killed three hundred (seems unbelievable) with a spear at one time, whereas in the other passage (2 Sam. 23:8) says:quote:
The Tachmonite that sat in the seat, chief among the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite: he lifted up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time.
I'm not sure if this is a contradiction or not. The names are different so the passages may be talking about two different people who were the chief of David's capitans. At the very least the numbers seem to have been exaggerated.
Edit:On rereading the thread I see that Dave has already created a chart comparing the two passages in question. The way I see it the contradictions that he highlights are difficult to dismiss.
quote:
There are some parts of the Bible that I am not concerned with; namely, the Book of Esther. The reason for this is because it nowhere mentions Yahweh, contains no doctrine, and, to my knowledge, it is not quoted by any other part of the Bible. As for the rest, I have a general desire to not believe something which is not true. And, though books like Judges and Samuel may be "Jewish histories" they do contain words of Yahweh which can shed light or modify other parts of the Bible. Also, if one book in particular has an inordinately high amount of contradictions, then I might want to consider that that book should perhaps be taken out of the canon of Scripture.
Given this perhaps we should limit our discusion of Biblical contradictions to the books of the Bible that are directly relevant to the Christian faith. I would suggest the four gospels and Paul's epistles as a starting point.
For example I'm interested in what you might have to say about the conflicting genealogies of Jesus given in Matthew and Luke. |
| Edited by - dv82matt on 06/04/2005 20:45:59 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2005 : 19:23:27 [Permalink]
|
Of the 90+ actual gospels of jesus that the Chatholic church maintains, the reason there are only 4 printed in the bible is because of the high degree of contradiction among them.
Or so says a Fransiscan aquaintance of mine.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2005 : 20:00:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Of the 90+ actual gospels of jesus that the Chatholic church maintains...
Wow. How many more than 4 have been translated into English? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2005 : 17:46:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Of the 90+ actual gospels of jesus that the Chatholic church maintains...
Wow. How many more than 4 have been translated into English?
I only know about the Gospel of Thomas.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2005 : 21:28:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Wow. How many more than 4 have been translated into English?
At some point probablt all of them. The aquaintance I'm referring to is (as far as I can tell) a legitimate Franciscan brother. The next time I run into him I'll ask him again.
Also, now that I have thought back on this conversation a little more, I think these works were not actually called gospels. Because of their discrepancies. But, like the gospels, they supposedly give some details of jesus and alledged events in his alledged life.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2005 : 11:49:40 [Permalink]
|
Atheist:
quote:
What about the Book of Exodus? And, while we're at it, why the insistence on insultingly labelled Masoretic Old Testament?
I defend Exodus and the rest of the Old Testament because I have so far found it to be a) relevant to the Christian life, b) harmonious with the Gospel, and c) as far as I have seen, not seriously out of step with known history. (I have studied the difference between the archeologists version of history and the Bible's version of history, and haven't found much that's conclusive.)
Dave:
About my sig: I believe that the world is a globe. I have not personally applied the scientific method to the world around me to determine if the world is round, but I have faith in the scientific evidences presented by people who have. I have faith that Jesus exists. If He appeared to me and talked to me, then I would no longer have faith that He exists, I would know that He exists. I see no problem with my sig.
matt:
quote:
So which priority takes precedence when a conflict between the two arises?
If I believe that there is an actual contradiction between the truth and the faith, I will believe the truth. At the moment there are two minor contradictions in the Bible which come to mind that I will agree with: in one gospel Jesus curses a fig tree before entering the temple, in another he curses it after leaving the temple. Also, one of the gospels attributes a quote to Zechariah when it was really from Jeremiah.
quote:
Why is it that you believe that the conflicting lists of mighty men are definitely not evidence of a biblical contradiction?
I do not think that it is conclusive evidence of a biblical contradiction. I generally hold to "innocent until proven guilty" in matters of religion (even if it's someone else's religion.)
As for the geneologies of Matthew and Luke, the common answer is that one is the geneology of Joseph and the other is of Mary.
I'll get back to you on Dave's comparison list.
quote:
Of the 90+ actual gospels of jesus that the Chatholic church maintains, the reason there are only 4 printed in the bible is because of the high degree of contradiction among them.
There are lots of "psuedo-graphia" (false-writings) from the early Christian era. Some of the major ways to tell the good from the bad is 1) was it reproduced in mass numbers, and 2) is it contradictory? I am so far from the Catholics that it is no use comparing my beliefs to their traditions. |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
| Edited by - hippy4christ on 06/08/2005 11:52:50 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2005 : 12:23:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
About my sig: I believe that the world is a globe. I have not personally applied the scientific method to the world around me to determine if the world is round, but I have faith in the scientific evidences presented by people who have. I have faith that Jesus exists. If He appeared to me and talked to me, then I would no longer have faith that He exists, I would know that He exists. I see no problem with my sig.
Lame.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2005 : 12:36:41 [Permalink]
|
Okay, concerning the comparison list:
quote:
2 Samuel 23:11 And after him was Shammah the son of Agee the Hararite. And the Philistines were gathered together into a troop, where was a piece of ground full of lentiles: and the people fled from the Philistines.
quote:
1 Chronicles 11:12 And after him was Eleazar the son of Dodo, the Ahohite, who was one of the three mighties. 1 Chronicles 11:13 He was with David at Pasdammim, and there the Philistines were gathered together to battle, where was a parcel of ground full of barley; and the people fled from before the Philistines.
These verses depict two different events by different people: the first refers to a battle in a field of lentils, the second refers to a battle in a field of barley. You may think that this is cheesy excuse, but think about it. David reigned for forty years and the Philistines were one of their primary enemies. There's bound to be lots of encounters that were similar.
As for the other differences, they simply list different people. The people from the first list (which was at the beginning of David's reign) probably died or resigned and were replaced by the time of the second list (which was at the end of David's reign).
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2005 : 12:40:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Dave:
About my sig: I believe that the world is a globe. I have not personally applied the scientific method to the world around me to determine if the world is round, but I have faith in the scientific evidences presented by people who have. I have faith that Jesus exists. If He appeared to me and talked to me, then I would no longer have faith that He exists, I would know that He exists. I see no problem with my sig.
I'm sorry that you equate your faith in God with a child being told by his parents that the Tooth Fairy exists, as it makes your faith seem cheap and subject to the whims of others. I feel even worse for you that the differences that you and I have discussed between faith in God and faith in science were apparently lost on you.
Do you remember those differences? How scientists knowledgable on the subject of Earth's sphericality nearly unanimously agree that the Earth is, indeed, round? Compared to the fact that even after 2,000 years of Christianity, experts in the field cannot agree even upon what definition of "adultery" to apply to the Ten Commandments?
There is no serious dispute about the Earth's shape. Plus, any scientist worth his salt will show you how to go about proving it for yourself. That should tell you quite a lot: that scientists are so confident that the answer they know is true, that they'll show anyone and everyone how to do the same tests. They have no worries that you're going to get a substantially different answer.
On the other hand, with even just a "single" god - the Christian God, for example - there are massive and bitter disputes regarding the very nature of the deity, and if you ask how you can determine the correct answer for yourself, you will be told it is only a matter of faith.
That you equate these two epistemologies is a sad commentary on your opinion of "knowledge" in general, really.
Plus, your definition of "science" is still just plain wrong. Science is a process, not a simple belief system. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2005 : 13:19:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
You may think that this is cheesy excuse, but think about it.
Yes, I do and I have. Where else in the Bible does this occur to the same extent? Is there any Biblical precedent for 17 of 37 names being identical after 40 years?
While your suppositions about these two sets of verses are, indeed, common-sensical, they don't magically erase the apparent self-contradiction(s) within the Bible. You are external to the Bible, after all.
And why is it that the list allegedly at the end of David's life has fewer total names on it than the one at the start of his reign? And is there any Biblical evidence that David's battle at Bethlehem took place before he began his reign as King? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2005 : 19:16:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
I do not think that it is conclusive evidence of a biblical contradiction. I generally hold to "innocent until proven guilty" in matters of religion (even if it's someone else's religion.)
I do not think that it is definite evidence of a biblical contradiction either (I can think of many unlikely but possible scenarios that would reconcile the two lists.), but what I'm asking you is whether or not it's even remotely possible that the discrepancies between the two lists, do in fact, represent a biblical contradiction. If not, then why is it impossible?
You also mention a standard of, "innocent until proven guilty." I am presuming that along with this your standard of proof would be, "beyond a reasonable doubt." While this is suitable in a criminal court where it results a strong bias in favor of the innocence of the defendant, I don't see how this bias can be helpful in determining the veracity of various texts of the Bible.quote:
As for the geneologies of Matthew and Luke, the common answer is that one is the geneology of Joseph and the other is of Mary.
Yeah, that's the standard answer. The problem with this is that neither geneology gives any indication that it is tracing the geneology of Jesus through Mary.
Another problem is that Luke's geneology contains many more generations than Matthew's in the same period of time. The standard apologist answer is here. This one is worth reading.
I'm quoting the beginning of your post at the end of mine.
quote:
If I believe that there is an actual contradiction between the truth and the faith, I will believe the truth.
Obviously I applaud the sentiment, but I am concerned by what I see as a tendency to dismiss evidence that conflicts with your faith.quote:
At the moment there are two minor contradictions in the Bible which come to mind that I will agree with: in one gospel Jesus curses a fig tree before entering the temple, in another he curses it after leaving the temple. Also, one of the gospels attributes a quote to Zechariah when it was really from Jeremiah.
Naturally I would agree that these are two "very likely" examples of Biblical contradictions, but I'm not sure why you would admit that they are contradictions. After all, there are plausable ways to reconcile the differing accounts.
For example, perhaps Jesus cursed the fig tree both before he entered the temple and after he left it, or perhaps the verses are speaking of two distinct but similar occasions. As for the misattributed quote, it is not impossible that Zechariah wrote the same thing as Jeremiah but that that particular text did not survive to the present day.
The point is that it is almost never impossible to come up with a rationalization for apparent Biblical contradictions. Naturally some rationalizations will be more plausable than others and they must be evaluated on that basis, but it is not really fair to completely dismiss a contradiction as being of no consequence on the basis of a rationalization for which there is no evidence. |
| Edited by - dv82matt on 06/08/2005 20:31:52 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2005 : 06:39:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
My current position is that some of the Bible is literal and some of it isn't. Some contradictions I accept, namely, the one I spoke of in my OP. My goal in this thread is to approximate how much of the Bible I can rationally take literally, how much I can rationally take figuratively, and how much I cannot accept at all.
[...]
The general rule that I take to interpreting Scripture is that I take it literally as much as I rationally can; I take something figurative if I have good contextual evidence to do so. If I can't rationally accept something literally, and I have no reason to take it figuratively, then it may be a contradiction. I interpret Scripture this way because I think that it's the most logical way to interpret any narrative. On top of this, there's Scriptural evidence for literalism.
If you can rationally accept that a fellow was the flesh and bone offspring of a supernatural being, born to a virgin human, eventually died and several days later miraculously came back to life, why would you be in the least bit concerned about any other irrational or contradictory events in the Bible? If you accept as a matter if faith that unexplainable events occur directly contrary to the principles of physics, could it not be true that some of those similar, but contradictory descriptions of the "same" event actually did occur simultaneously in parallel universes with just those few details of difference?quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
For others who accept the same method of interpretation that I do, we have a common ground on which I can say "you are in error because you are not taking this passage literally".
[...]
My interpretation is better than past interpretations because I take verses literally which they take figuratively, or ignore, or sideline.
That seems rather judgmental. There are millions of believers who are certain they know which parts of the Bible should be taken for their word and which are questionable, and almost none agree. It sounds like you're saying the people who agree with you are right, and everyone else is wrong.
Draw ten Christians out of a hat, sit them around a table, and read each passage from the Bible one by one. After reading each, pose the simple question: Literal, yes or no? When all ten unanimously agree, passage by passage, which ones are to be taken literally, then you're onto something. But that's unlikely to happen. Out of millions, you probably can't find even ten who will agree. It looks like you're making the assumption that your singular interpretation, among millions, is correct.
When you start an inquiry with the phrase, "If we assume these irrational, impossible, or unprovable things to be true, then... ", you're building from a guess. Absolutely nothing else that follows can be rationally, possibly, or provably accepted as truth. All your attempts to iron out the discrepancies might make you more comfortable, but if you really believed, really had faith, you wouldn't be so desperately trying to prove these things to yourself.
There may still hope for you, Hippy. Come on, step away from the dark side. 
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
