Let's Talk About Sin

[Orange_Crush]

I'll just leave this here.

Discuss.

1. Two different lists composed at different times in David's reign (contradiction must be both true and untrue at the same time and in the same context).
2. Not a contradiction-- it had to do with the way Jewish culture kept genealogies.
3. Faith-- James is making the theological point that works prove faith. The context explicitly states this.


I won't go through the entire list, if you don't mind. Of the roughly 10 supposed contradictions listed so far in this thread, they have been explained.

 

[GhostVol]

No. I seriously do not. The text gives me no reason to think there is a contradiction. Here is the Matt 28 section, with additional timeline inserted from Mark.



It flows pretty naturally there doesn't it? Let's look at it from the other perspective.



Flows pretty well, doesn't it?

I'll assume (although we know what that usually gets us) that the parts in blue are your interpretation. I just kind of thought that Matthew would write what happened in the chronological order in which it happened.

I'm not going to take on a case by case basis every single contradiction in the Bible. We'd be here for a very long time. Suffice it to say that there are many and to deny that there aren't is simply burying your (generic your) head in the sand.

So we're left with what, exactly? An ambiguous work of literature that proclaims itself to be the word of god?

 

[Orange_Crush]

I'll assume (although we know what that usually gets us) that the parts in blue are your interpretation. I just kind of thought that Matthew would write what happened in the chronological order in which it happened.

I'm taking it you are interpreting "went to see the tomb" as "arrived at the tomb"? That's the only way I can gather that you think Matthew was not chronological...

Matthew 28: Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. 2And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. Mary and the girls show up and see the angel. 3His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. 4And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men. 5But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified.

Where was the man when he jumped off the bridge? lol

:hi:

So we're left with what, exactly? An ambiguous work of literature that proclaims itself to be the word of god?

I take it you want the word of God to be easy, in a nice little bow, and written by His hand specifically in every time and culture that has ever existed? You don't agree with revealing its complexities to a couple of cultures and sending it down through time? You don't think it's fair for God to ask people to put effort into His word?

Alas, I believe this is just another: "If I were God, I would have..." questions.

Edit: The fullness of the message of the Bible is that God created the world knowing that it would fall, but His plan was always to eventually send His son to redeem the world. He chose a specific people (Israel) to reveal Himself through, and to eventually bring His son through. He brought His son as the fullness of His message to us, who lived, taught, died and resurrected.

His plan was not just to lecture us, thus He didn't decide to reveal His word over and over repeatedly in every culture and language. It was to reveal his character through a nation, have them record it, bring His son, have that record it, and leave peoples' acceptance as a matter of submissive faith.

 

[T-TownVol]

Crush,
You are a good man to take all the nonsense that some throw at you AND keep a level head. "Fight the Good Fight and Keep the Faith".

 

[Roustabout]

I'll assume (although we know what that usually gets us) that the parts in blue are your interpretation. I just kind of thought that Matthew would write what happened in the chronological order in which it happened.

I'm not going to take on a case by case basis every single contradiction in the Bible. We'd be here for a very long time. Suffice it to say that there are many and to deny that there aren't is simply burying your (generic your) head in the sand.

So we're left with what, exactly? An ambiguous work of literature that proclaims itself to be the word of god?

You've gone to seeming to be sincere and want an explanation for an alledged contradiction. Two people offered a reasonable explanation and your response is this?? That we are burying our heads in the sand because we won't cave into your claims that there are 'many.' And then you make an accusation of ambiguity? True colors exposed.

Septic googled 'contradictions in the bible' and posted a link. I'm sure he's actually studied the subject.

 

[GhostVol]

You've gone to seeming to be sincere and want an explanation for an alledged contradiction. Two people offered a reasonable explanation and your response is this?? That we are burying our heads in the sand because we won't cave into your claims that there are 'many.' And then you make an accusation of ambiguity? True colors exposed.

Septic googled 'contradictions in the bible' and posted a link. I'm sure he's actually studied the subject.

No.... The only point I was trying to make is about ambiguity. Do you assert that there is none in the Bible? Don't know exactly why you decided to go on full attack-dog mode. Talk about "true colors"......

It's a legitimate question (at least in my mind)....... Is the Bible the literal word of god or isn't it? It's a simple yes/no question. If it is, the discussion moves in one direction. If it isn't the "literal" word then it moves in another.

 

[Septic]

No.... The only point I was trying to make is about ambiguity. Do you assert that there is none in the Bible? Don't know exactly why you decided to go on full attack-dog mode. Talk about "true colors"......

It's a legitimate question (at least in my mind)....... Is the Bible the literal word of god or isn't it? It's a simple yes/no question. If it is, the discussion moves in one direction. If it isn't the "literal" word then it moves in another.

Let me take a stab at that. It's literal when it meets the objective of whatever the believer is foisting. It's allegorical/metaphorical when positions are brought up that are downright silly and there just can't be any literal or logical explanation for the goofiness.

It's all about how the believer chooses to rationalize it.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Feel free to debunk just one of these:

The Thinking Atheist - | Bible Contradictions

If you did already ignore me, I did say I would try and read up, but I'm not a shut in and I don't have unlimited time.

Or we can just talk about Genesis chapter 6.

The Mod is right too - I actually refer to myself as a biblical atheist but I'm not one for labels and figured you good people would be able to let my generalization slide in the same way I do when you say christian without listing your denomination.

Well the first thing on that page is totally wrong. Nowhere in the bible does its state that the earth is 6000-10000 yrs old. The sun is the closest star to earth, not Alpha Centauri. The young earth theory has been debunked.

Solomon's temple was a small structure? So 180' long, 90' wide and 50' high is a structure? Wow I would like to see what constitutes a large one? Why were that many people needed to build it? Well with ancient building techniques all they had was man power. It's not like they had machines to do the work. Those reasons I just mentioned are also why it took so long to build.

Sorry but I could go on and on with the inaccuracies of the link you suggested. It is full of misinformation. I like your posts but this link is terrible.

 

[Roustabout]

Let me take a stab at that. It's literal when it meets the objective of whatever the believer is foisting. It's allegorical/metaphorical when positions are brought up that are downright silly and there just can't be any literal or logical explanation for the goofiness.

It's all about how the believer chooses to rationalize it.

I'm sure you've studied hermaneutics??

Either you have, or you are just making blad assertions.

 

[Vol8188]

Let me take a stab at that. It's literal when it meets the objective of whatever the believer is foisting. It's allegorical/metaphorical when positions are brought up that are downright silly and there just can't be any literal or logical explanation for the goofiness.

It's all about how the believer chooses to rationalize it.

Kinda like when I brought up Job and how screwed up that story is, and then received a response that they didn't believe job existed and that the entire story was one big metaphor.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

Well the first thing on that page is totally wrong. Nowhere in the bible does its state that the earth is 6000-10000 yrs old. The sun is the closest star to earth, not Alpha Centauri. The young earth theory has been debunked.

Solomon's temple was a small structure? So 180' long, 90' wide and 50' high is a structure? Wow I would like to see what constitutes a large one? Why were that many people needed to build it? Well with ancient building techniques all they had was man power. It's not like they had machines to do the work. Those reasons I just mentioned are also why it took so long to build.

Sorry but I could go on and on with the inaccuracies of the link you suggested. It is full of misinformation. I like your posts but this link is terrible.

I have to admit... I find it somewhat humorous that numerous efforts have been made (mostly by posting links to someone else's thoughts) in an attempt to support their view that the Bible is contradictory. These have all been addressed with detailed explanations, and in a very respectful way. And yet, when it doesn't "mesh" with what they seem to want to believe they resort back to ambiguity (i.e. there are "many" contradictions, this is "known" by everyone, there are "too many" to mention, etc.).

And yet Septic has the gall to say this (another unsupported allegation)...

It's literal when it meets the objective of whatever the believer is foisting. It's allegorical/metaphorical when positions are brought up that are downright silly and there just can't be any literal or logical explanation for the goofiness.

It's all about how the believer chooses to rationalize it.

... when believers have been the only posters to provide facts, details, etc. It is quite evident where any "silliness" and "goofiness" in this thread is coming from.

 

[Roustabout]

No.... The only point I was trying to make is about ambiguity. Do you assert that there is none in the Bible? Don't know exactly why you decided to go on full attack-dog mode. Talk about "true colors"......

It's a legitimate question (at least in my mind)....... Is the Bible the literal word of god or isn't it? It's a simple yes/no question. If it is, the discussion moves in one direction. If it isn't the "literal" word then it moves in another.

I agree, it is a legit question. The question is, will you except a legitimate answer? Let's see.
So, let's define literal. In the scripture we do see certain claims. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is useful for.........." So, it's important to know what is being claimed and then what is not. Otherwise you are asking us to defend strawmen and red herrings, which we won't.
No where in the Bible does it say, everything in these 66 books is a literal instruction. I read the bible from a grammtico-historical method. And for good reason. It is simple and ask the question, "what was the original author, literally communicating to his audience?" EVERY person applies this naturally when they pick up a newspaper, novel, comic book, etc.

The Bible is a collection (a library if you will) of 66 books, written over a period of 1,500 by aprroximate 40 different authors. The bible in treated allegorically becomes putty in the hand of the exegete.

Let me offer an example. In Matthew Jesus states that if you hand causes you to sin, cut it off. Is this a literal instruction? If we read this in context and with a proper exegesis we can easily determine that Jesus is not calling for self mutilation, but is instead giving the audience a literal illustration of how dangerous sin can be.

If you want to address something ambiguous, then I suggest you at least give a specific example. I am not going to paint with a broad brush and say, "there is no ambiguity in the Bible." But, at the same time, you shouldn't make hasty generalizations and expect us to just accept that as fact. The reason is that your intentions are to malign the overall message and truth of the Bible. "It's ambigious here, so it must be ambiguous everywhere. Therefore you can't trust it." I've done this dance before.

 

[GhostVol]

I agree, it is a legit question.

Thank you for at least agreeing that it's a question worth being discussed. I was looking forward to some thought provoking discussion, but....

The reason is that your intentions are to malign the overall message and truth of the Bible.

And then you have this.... You have no intention of discussing the subject at hand unless it involves your opponent falling to his knees and keening "Thank you Roustabout for opening my eyes to the SO obvious truth". You have pre-judged any and every atheist that has the temerity to walk your planet and doesn't believe the same way you do. The above attitude is why all discussions of this nature devolve into name calling and wee-wee measuring. You have absolutely NO idea what my intentions are and what brought me to this thread and into this discussion. Your comments leading up to your statement of my intentions were relatively civil and deserving of rebuttal. Not anymore.....

I've done this dance before.

You may now get off your sanctimonious high horse and retire knowing I have well and truly been put in my place.

 

[MercyPercy]

Yep. They interpret the Bible based on the convenience of the argument at hand. You ask ten different Christians to explain something and you're gonna get ten different answers.

 

[GhostVol]

Yep. They interpret the Bible based on the convenience of the argument at hand. You ask ten different Christians to explain something and you're gonna get ten different answers.

This is part of the problem at hand. Claiming that the bible is the word of god it only follows that the word of god must be perfect because god is, by definition, perfect. When it is pointed out that the bible is not perfect you get a lot of "The bible says it, I believe it, therefore it's true" followed by a lot of "la la la la I can't hear you". So I appreciate when someone can expound on the contradictions without resorting to those sorts of things.

 

[Roustabout]

Thank you for at least agreeing that it's a question worth being discussed. I was looking forward to some thought provoking discussion, but....



And then you have this.... You have no intention of discussing the subject at hand unless it involves your opponent falling to his knees and keening "Thank you Roustabout for opening my eyes to the SO obvious truth". You have pre-judged any and every atheist that has the temerity to walk your planet and doesn't believe the same way you do. The above attitude is why all discussions of this nature devolve into name calling and wee-wee measuring. You have absolutely NO idea what my intentions are and what brought me to this thread and into this discussion. Your comments leading up to your statement of my intentions were relatively civil and deserving of rebuttal. Not anymore.....



You may now get off your sanctimonious high horse and retire knowing I have well and truly been put in my place.

Ghost. First I do sincerely apologize if I've offended. You are right, I made assumptions about your intentions, and I was wrong. I assure you, I am interested in a healthy dialogue.

 

[Orange_Crush]

This is part of the problem at hand. Claiming that the bible is the word of god it only follows that the word of god must be perfect because god is, by definition, perfect. When it is pointed out that the bible is not perfect you get a lot of "The bible says it, I believe it, therefore it's true" followed by a lot of "la la la la I can't hear you". So I appreciate when someone can expound on the contradictions without resorting to those sorts of things.

So wait a minute, when specific supposed contradictions were brought up, I gave rational responses based on valid hermeneutic rules of interpretation. Apparently that isn't your cup of tea. When Roustabout pointed out that you haven't studied hermeneutics, you didn't really respond. You went off on him for his sanctimony, and then follow up with the above sanctimonious vagueness and gross generalization.

I think you'll be waiting a while before anyone takes any more time in discussion with you.

Good evening.

Edit: Sorry, I missed your edit.

 

[Roustabout]

Yep. They interpret the Bible based on the convenience of the argument at hand. You ask ten different Christians to explain something and you're gonna get ten different answers.

This is just another hasty generalization. Do Christians have different conclusions and interpretations? Yes. Does this negate whether there is a correct interpretation of the bible? No. does the failure of Christians to agree change whether or not the bible is the inspired word of God? No. Further, most of the area of disagreement is in what we call secondary doctrines. Christians, as a whole, agree on the essentials.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Yep. They interpret the Bible based on the convenience of the argument at hand. You ask ten different Christians to explain something and you're gonna get ten different answers.

Sounds just like an atheist. You sure you're not talking about yourself? The fact that people interpret the Bible differently means what? I hope you do realize that everyone doesn't interpret all text the same way.

Here is an example. Let's say you and I read the exact same sonnet by Shakespeare. Now what if we interpreted it differently? What if the meaning you got was completely different than what I got? Does that prove anything? No. All it says is humans have the ability to have different interpretations.

 

[GhostVol]

Ghost. First I do sincerely apologize if I've offended. You are right, I made assumptions about your intentions, and I was wrong. I assure you, I am interested in a healthy dialogue.

The problem Roustabout is the fact that ANY pointing out of discrepancies, contradictions, ambiguities or non-sequiturs in the bible are met with automatic assumptions of "attack" and ascriptions of malignity. Christians, in my experience, don't WANT to discuss these things as it causes questions they don't want to answer.

Believe me, I gave great thought to these problems before deciding that there is no god.

 

[GhostVol]

So wait a minute, when specific supposed contradictions were brought up, I gave rational responses based on valid hermeneutic rules of interpretation. Apparently that isn't your cup of tea. When Roustabout pointed out that you haven't studied hermeneutics, you didn't really respond. You went off on him for his sanctimony, and then follow up with the above sanctimonious vagueness and gross generalization.

I think you'll be waiting a while before anyone takes any more time in discussion with you.

Good evening.

Edit: Sorry, I missed your edit.

Glad you caught the edit. Hit the button too fast and had to take care of a "natural urge" when I realized I hadn't finished my thought.

 

[GhostVol]

Sounds just like an atheist. You sure you're not talking about yourself? The fact that people interpret the Bible differently means what? I hope you do realize that everyone doesn't interpret all text the same way.

Here is an example. Let's say you and I read the exact same sonnet by Shakespeare. Now what if we interpreted it differently? What if the meaning you got was completely different than what I got? Does that prove anything? No. All it says is humans have the ability to have different interpretations.

The problem with this, BOT, is that we're not talking about Shakespeare we're talking about a perfect god. Interpretation shouldn't be an issue. ALL should be able to see the point.

 

[Roustabout]

This is part of the problem at hand. Claiming that the bible is the word of god it only follows that the word of god must be perfect because god is, by definition, perfect. When it is pointed out that the bible is not perfect you get a lot of "The bible says it, I believe it, therefore it's true" followed by a lot of "la la la la I can't hear you". So I appreciate when someone can expound on the contradictions without resorting to those sorts of things.

Actually, you are committing a category fallacy here.
Is the written word of god perfect in the same sense as God himself? No. The written word is the revelation from God. God enlisted imperfect people just like you and me to communicate His message to humanity.
That is one reason (of many) I find the Bible so believable. If it were a fabricated document as many allege then why aren't the embarrassing and difficult parts just edited out? There isn't a glossed over presentation in any books of the bible.
I find the Bible to be divinely inspired and perfect in what it was written to accomplish. And that is to point us towards the Logos, or living Word.

 

[Orange_Crush]

The problem Roustabout is the fact that ANY pointing out of discrepancies, contradictions, ambiguities or non-sequiturs in the bible are met with automatic assumptions of "attack" and ascriptions of malignity. Christians, in my experience, don't WANT to discuss these things as it causes questions they don't want to answer.

Believe me, I gave great thought to these problems before deciding that there is no god.

GV, I think there are actually few professing Christians who would genuinely feel this way. As a pastor, I'll give a general overview of the major groups I encounter:

1. The 'lukewarm' that don't care enough about the Bible to study it for themselves or allow it to define their lives. These people don't care enough to care enough about the tough questions. To them, being a Christian is a hereditary thing, and it equates to being a southern american.
2. Those who ignore the questions because they threaten their valued beliefs. In my experience, this is a relatively small group.
3. Those who don't worry about the questions because it's a matter of faith and what they know of God defines what they don't understand.
4. Those who care very much and approach people who they trust to ask pointed questions. This is a bigger group than you may think; you just may not talk to them on these subjects very much because they don't want to talk to you about it.

Glad you caught the edit. Hit the button too fast and had to take care of a "natural urge" when I realized I hadn't finished my thought.

:hi:

I always enjoy such discussions and treasure it when I find someone with vastly differing beliefs, and who can have candid, calm conversations.

 

[Orange_Crush]

The problem with this, BOT, is that we're not talking about Shakespeare we're talking about a perfect god. Interpretation shouldn't be an issue. ALL should be able to see the point.

Please explain. It seems to me, when studying the infinitely transcendent, interpretation is vastly important, yet more work.

Additionally, you've mentioned the 'perfect God' part a few times. You must remember that imperfect people are struggling with the message from a perfect God. In addition, as has ben mentioned, we're struggling to interpret books that were written in a different language, at different times, to different cultures. It adds to the complications.

:hi: