|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
 Posted - 06/21/2005 : 00:42:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
So, here are my proposed premises for the study of Biblical Contradictions:
1: The purpose of this study is to measure the self-consistency of the Hebrew Masoretic (Old Testament) and the Greek Received Texts (New Testament).
2: No alleged contradiction shall be considered as evidence of inconsistency unless said allegation has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt within these premises.
3: If a proposal is made to consider the intent of a passage to be figurative, or if one claims that an unsaid statement was intended, compelling evidence must be presented.
4: The universe shall be presumed to work according to observed laws of nature unless specific mention is made of a supernatural occurence, or unless compelling evidence for such an occurence is presented.
I think that' good for now, I may think of something else later. These premises are debatable.
Well I do have some problem with the bias inherent in premise #2, but the rest I can live with. Since they're debatable, would you consider a rewording such as,
2: An apparent contradiction will only be considered evidence of an actual contradiction if there is no plausable understanding of the passage that is not contradictory.
?
Anyway it is with your premises in mind that I bring up the following:
Previously I alleged a contradiction in the geneologies of Jesus presented in Matthew and Luke, to which you responded that the common answer is that one is the geneology of Joseph and the other is of Mary.
As neither passage mentions that they are tracing Jesus's geneology through Mary and in fact both indicate that they are tracing it thorough Joseph I challenge you, under premise 3, to provide 'conclusive evidence' that your answer (which I think qualifies as an 'unsaid statement') was the intended meaning of whichever passage you believe traces the geneology of Jesus through Mary.
Moving on:
Regarding Biblical interpretation I found this page to be quite interesting.quote:
The Bible itself testifies that the Bible contains customs, rites, rituals, beliefs, and practices which did not have God as the source. For example, in Jeremiah chapters 7 and 8 there is a clear condemnation of the sacrificial system which was at the heart of the ancient Israelite Temple Cult. According to Jeremiah's protest writing, the laws concerning burnt offerings did not originate with Moses, as legend suggested, and that the people did not have the Laws of God (no Torah, according to Jeremiah). Therefore, an examination of the Bible reveals that the Bible contains source materials from diverse traditions, in conflict over ideology and interpretation. These variant sources have one point in unity, in that they are all discussing one principle subject - Yahweh, God of Israel. The Bible comments upon its own sources, by insisting in numerous interesting passages, that not all traditions are created equal, and that some traditions found in the Bible were actually worthless, even evil and worthy of condemnation. This is not my opinion but rather simply what the Bible itself says about the Bible.
I am very curious about your opinion of this kind of thinking. |
| Edited by - dv82matt on 06/21/2005 01:06:07 |
 |
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2005 : 11:27:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
2: An apparent contradiction will only be considered evidence of an actual contradiction if there is no plausable understanding of the passage that is not contradictory.
Okay, I'll accept that.
Dave:
quote:
"Knew" suggests much more.
It suggests that Moses had a deeper relationship with Yahweh than with other prophets. And since these statements:
Exodus 33:11 "And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend."
Ex.33:20 "Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me and live."
are found in the same chapter, I would posit that while Moses spoke to Yahweh face to face, he did not see his face.
matt:
I looked again at the geneology verses, it does appear to me that they are contradictory.
As to the page you presented, I also found it interesting and will have to look at it more. But from what I've seen so far, he hasn't sufficiently documented his position that quote:
According to Jeremiah's protest writing, the laws concerning burnt offerings did not originate with Moses, as legend suggested, and that the people did not have the Laws of God (no Torah, according to Jeremiah).
For instance, he quotes this:
quote:
"Thus says YAHWEH of hosts, the God of Israel, "Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices and eat flesh. For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.But this is what I commanded them, saying, ‘Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you will be My people; and you will walk in all the way which I command you, that it may be well with you.' (Jeremiah Chapter 7 verse 21)
And then says: quote:
A common 'apologetic' dodge is to insist that 'animal sacrifices were not ordained when the people came out of Egypt, but rather later. But the law books specifically state that the laws of sacrifice were part of the Laws of Moses which Moses supposedly received while on Mount Sinai.
"This is the law of the burnt offering, the grain offering and the sin offering and the guilt offering and the ordination offering and the sacrifice of peace offerings, which YAHWEH commanded Moses at Mount Sinai in the day that He commanded the sons of Israel to present their offerings to YAHWEH in the wilderness of Sinai." Leviticus Chapter 7 verse 37
However, the day that He commanded them to obey his voice wasn't the day that he commanded them to present their offerings.
Furthermore he says: quote:
This statement clearly conflicts with the version of events given by Jeremiah. Jeremiah makes his condemnation of the law books explicit in the passage that follows:
"My people do not know The ordinance of YAHWEH. How can you say, ‘We are wise, And the law of YAHWEH is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made it into a lie." Jeremiah Chapter 8 verse 7, 8
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 06/21/2005 11:29:09 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2005 : 20:50:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
quote:
2: An apparent contradiction will only be considered evidence of an actual contradiction if there is no plausable understanding of the passage that is not contradictory.
Okay, I'll accept that.
Done.quote:
I looked again at the geneology verses, it does appear to me that they are contradictory.
Cool. Moving on.quote:
As to the page you presented, I also found it interesting and will have to look at it more. But from what I've seen so far, he hasn't sufficiently documented his position that quote:
According to Jeremiah's protest writing, the laws concerning burnt offerings did not originate with Moses, as legend suggested, and that the people did not have the Laws of God (no Torah, according to Jeremiah).
Yeah, I agree. I think the point I liked was the idea of the Bible originating from divergent and often incompatable traditions which are then altered and interpreted to fit the prevailing orthodoxy of a given time.quote:
However, I would say that it's possible that parts (or all) of the Bible was forged.
Damn, if we keep agreeing then what are we gonna argue about. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2005 : 23:29:54 [Permalink]
|
More interesting to me are the ways in which the bible contradicts observed reality.
We could make a list, but it would likely take thousands of pages.
|
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 - 06/23/2005 : 11:57:37 [Permalink]
|
Okay, next topic on the SAB list:
Does God want some to go to hell?
(As an aside, I do not believe that hell is never-ending-concious-torment)
God wants everyone to go to heaven.
1 Tim.2:3-4 "God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved."
2 Pet.3:9 "The Lord is ... not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
God wants some to go to hell.
Pr.16:4 "The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil."
Jn.12:40 "He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them."
Rom.9:18 "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth."
2 Th.2:11-12 "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned."
This is an example of taking verses too absolutely. One could say that if Yahweh didn't want anyone to perish then He wouldn't send anyone to hell, but that obviously isn't the case. When an individual comes into this world, Yahweh wants them saved and calls to them:
John 1:9 That (Jesus) was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
John 12:32 And I (Jesus), if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
But you can fall from grace:
Hbr 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
For example, if, in the last days of his life, Hitler realized that he had done wrong and prayed for repentence, I still wouldn't fault Yahweh for not giving him eternal life and happiness (if that is indeed the case).
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 |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2005 : 04:17:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
For example, if, in the last days of his life, Hitler realized that he had done wrong and prayed for repentence, I still wouldn't fault Yahweh for not giving him eternal life and happiness (if that is indeed the case).
Source Please. I am not familiar with this claim. It could be legit, but it smells like the Lady Hope myth.
Thank You |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2005 : 05:32:47 [Permalink]
|
| Moakley, I think you missed the "if." Hippy wasn't stating that Hitler did repent, he was making a hypothetical statement about what might have happened if Hitler had repented. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2005 : 10:14:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
God wants some to go to hell.
Pr.16:4 "The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil."
Jn.12:40 "He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them."
Rom.9:18 "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth."
2 Th.2:11-12 "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned."
Why would god create people that are destined to spend eternity in hell?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2005 : 11:41:25 [Permalink]
|
Correct me if I am mistaken Hippie4Christ, but you appear to believe that God's plan for all people when they are born is for heaven, but some later "fall away" and disqualify themselves. If so, that is better than what Paul taught. He clearly taught in Romans that God creates some people for destruction and some for glory.
As Mr. Humbert's question, "Why would god create people that are destined to spend eternity in hell?", the answer according to some sects is that it shows God's 'justice' and it serves to highlight His 'mercy' all the more to those who escape his 'wrath'.
But to Jesus the concept of God was best anthropomorphized (to fit our understanding) to that of an ideal loving earthly father. We wouldn't think an earthly father sane let alone loving if he planned from the beginning to destroy some of his offspring so that the ones who survived would feel better about themselves and their father.
Regarding Hilter's (or anyone's) chances of life to come: Only Deity knows for sure when a being has lost even the *potential* to sincerely chose reality over delusion. And when potential is gone, that's when the lights go out for good.
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2005 : 11:49:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Okay, next topic on the SAB list:
Does God want some to go to hell?
(As an aside, I do not believe that hell is never-ending-concious-torment)
God wants everyone to go to heaven.
1 Tim.2:3-4 "God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved."
2 Pet.3:9 "The Lord is ... not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
If God is omnipotent then He is certainly capable of saving everyone. Since not everyone is saved this implies either that God is not fully omnipotent, or that He does not want everyone to be saved.
One common explanation is that God does not want to interfere with 'free will'. If God forced everyone to believe in Him then belief would be meaningless.
One problem with this explanation is this, suppose someone chooses the wrong religion or is not convinced that God exists. Is God then forced to send that person to hell? Surely not, God is omnipotent. So we are left with the same quandry, either God is not fully omnipotent, or God wants to send some people to hell.
Another problem with the free will explanation is that some Bible verses indicate that God does interfere with free will. The following verses are a good example of this.quote:
God wants some to go to hell.
Pr.16:4 "The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil."
Jn.12:40 "He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them."
Rom.9:18 "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth."
2 Th.2:11-12 "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned."
This is an example of taking verses too absolutely. One could say that if Yahweh didn't want anyone to perish then He wouldn't send anyone to hell, but that obviously isn't the case. When an individual comes into this world, Yahweh wants them saved and calls to them:
John 1:9 That (Jesus) was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
John 12:32 And I (Jesus), if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
The way I read it Yahweh wants people to believe in Him. As an incentive He offers those who believe in Him entrance into heaven, and as punishment He threatens those who don't believe with hell.quote:
But you can fall from grace:
Hbr 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
For example, if, in the last days of his life, Hitler realized that he had done wrong and prayed for repentence, I still wouldn't fault Yahweh for not giving him eternal life and happiness (if that is indeed the case).
Well, if it were the first time Hitler had received the knowledge of the truth, then I guess the rules say that God would have to let him in to heaven.
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2005 : 12:33:13 [Permalink]
|
| ...where he could then be imprisoned for eternity, surely HSI(he-she-it) could make a slice of hell in heaven. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2005 : 18:27:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt : If God is omnipotent then He is certainly capable of saving everyone. Since not everyone is saved this implies either that God is not fully omnipotent, or that He does not want everyone to be saved.
One common explanation is that God does not want to interfere with 'free will'. If God forced everyone to believe in Him then belief would be meaningless.
One problem with this explanation is this, suppose someone chooses the wrong religion or is not convinced that God exists. Is God then forced to send that person to hell? Surely not, God is omnipotent. So we are left with the same quandry, either God is not fully omnipotent, or God wants to send some people to hell.
First, it should be noted that almost by definition God cannot be 'forced' to do anything. That would imply that there is a force to which God is subservient, and if that was so, God would not be God. No, rather God is subject to himself, ultimately his own volition.
To man who is in God's image God has granted some of this ability of volition, which for man is essentially (partial) freedom from strict causality. If a man ultimately chooses against God (and hence ultimate reality), his continued existence would represent disharmony and antagonism towards the universe's goal of perfection. Those qualified to judge ensure that such beings do not continue on to jeopardize the safety and progress of the universe.
Mere intellectual uncertainty about God damns no one; rather it is indifference to God and further, antagonism towards his ways which puts man in peril. If man knew the constant work of God in his very own soul to spiritualize and uplift him, he would realize he is truly without excuse.
Me in preachin' mode.
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2005 : 18:58:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
To man who is in God's image God has granted some of this ability of volition, which for man is essentially (partial) freedom from strict causality. If a man ultimately chooses against God (and hence ultimate reality), his continued existence would represent disharmony and antagonism towards the universe's goal of perfection. Those qualified to judge ensure that such beings do not continue on to jeopardize the safety and progress of the universe.
Mere intellectual uncertainty about God damns no one; rather it is indifference to God and further, antagonism towards his ways which puts man in peril. If man knew the constant work of God in his very own soul to spiritualize and uplift him, he would realize he is truly without excuse.
Me in preachin' mode.
Or god is a sadist who delights in torture.
I could point out how the bible does not support your contention that "Mere intellectual uncertainty about God damns no one," but I suspect you will again say that you were only stating personal opinion (which is thus above criticism). But really, if everyone is going to just start presenting their unvarnished opinions, their is no purpose to this thread. It becomes merely, as you have admitted, a pulpit.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 06/24/2005 19:01:18 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2005 : 19:21:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
If a man ultimately chooses against God (and hence ultimate reality), his continued existence would represent disharmony and antagonism towards the universe's goal of perfection.
...and therefore must be smitten from reality with extreme prejudice. Is this in any religous text (because it defintely doesn't sound very judeo-christian) or, as was said, your personal opinion about how It works.
I say that if god exists, then he (for lack of better pronoun) treats his toys like a spoiled 6 year old...he throws them around a lot, abuses them, and then just chunks them away when they do not bring him pleasure anymore. Just my opinion. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2005 : 20:30:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
First, it should be noted that almost by definition God cannot be 'forced' to do anything. That would imply that there is a force to which God is subservient, and if that was so, God would not be God.
I've said it before, but I'll repeat it again for markie...
If you are an omnipotent being, there is indeed atleast one thing you cannot do and remain omnipotent. Grant free will.
|
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 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
