# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  101 Clear Contradictions in the Bible

## Ronin Truth

> *101 Clear Contradictions in the Bible
> *
> Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?
> (a) God did (2 Samuel 24: 1)
> (b) Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1)
> 
> In that count how many fighting men were found in Israel?
> (a) Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
> (b) One million, one hundred thousand (IChronicles 21:5)
> ...


And this is just some of the very trivial contradictory stuff.

----------


## Theocrat

> And this is just some of the very trivial contradictory stuff.


I don't agree that those are contradictions, given the fact that many of them are cited without a proper exegesis of the Biblical texts. But, nonetheless, I have a question for you, Ronin Truth. Are you an atheist?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I don't agree that those are contradictions, given the fact that many of them are cited without a proper exegesis of the Biblical texts. But, nonetheless, I have a question for you, Ronin Truth. Are you an atheist?


No, I'm not smart enough to be one. 

Are you a Pharisee?

Ah, the old "cited without a proper exegesis of the Biblical texts" lame excuse trick, I see.  

What about the others?

----------


## euphemia

The point of numbering the soldiers is that it was a sin to do so.  David was told specifically not to do it, yet he did.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> The point of numbering the soldiers is that it was a sin to do so. David was told specifically not to do it, yet he did.


Interesting point. Thanks!  

Why didn't the book get fixed, on that reality?

----------


## Theocrat

> No, I'm not smart enough to be one. 
> 
> Are you a Pharisee?
> 
> Ah, the old "cited without a proper exegesis of the Biblical texts" lame excuse trick, I see.  
> 
> What about the others?


If you're not an atheist, then what are you?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> If you're not an atheist, then what are you?


Are you looking to debate deities, Theo?

----------


## Theocrat

> Are you looking to debate deities, Theo?


No. There is a more foundational issue that needs to be dealt with, first.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> If you're not an atheist, then what are you?


An immortal multi-dimensional entity on a short-term 4D physical trip.  

Not really an accurate description, but the best I can do on short notice with these very primitive tools. 

If you're not a Pharisee, what are YOU?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> No. There is a more foundational issue that needs to be dealt with, first.


Okay. Thanks. I was just curious. I loathe it when we start debating over deities. Discussion turns ugly when that happens. Every time. Ronin invites an intriguing discussion here by way of what he shared in the op. I'm interested in contradictions in the Bible myself. In fact, it had just came up in another thread the other day and someone tried to briefly explain the phenomenon to me as to why that is but I was still left dumb, I suppose. The way that it was explained to me was that some verses that are often mentioned in contradiction with one another aren't really applicable to anyone at all.  It was mentioned that they were part of a covenant that was temporal, not eternal. Of course, that's as far as it went. Was just kind of a brief answer to a question that I had about contradiction in the Bible.

----------


## Theocrat

> An immortal multi-dimensional entity on a short-term 4D physical trip.  
> 
> Not really an accurate description, but the best I can do on short notice with these very primitive tools. 
> 
> If you're not a Pharisee, what are YOU?


Do you believe that there are laws of Logic?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Do you believe that there are laws of Logic?


 Well I believe there is logic. Does that help?

Do you believe there is cognitive dissonance?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Well I believe there is logic. Does that help?
> 
> Do you believe there is cognitive dissonance?


What basis do you have to say that there are laws of logic?  How do you know they exist?

----------


## Theocrat

> Well I believe there is logic. Does that help?
> 
> Do you believe there is cognitive dissonance?


How do you know that Logic exists?

----------


## Theocrat

> What basis do you have to say that there are laws of logic?  How do you know they exist?


I appreciate your help, Sola, but I got this.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> How do you know that Logic exists?


Is that what I said?  I don't think so. 

Neither one of us is going to be any too happy with how this conversation turns out if you don't start answering the questions too.

I think you're behind by about 10.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I appreciate your help, Sola, but I got this.


Go for it, I'll watch

----------


## Natural Citizen

> What basis do you have to say that there are laws of logic?  How do you know they exist?


What basis do you have to deny laws of logic? How do you know they don't exist? Those two will be okay on their own.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I appreciate your help, Sola, but I got this.


 <snicker!>

----------


## Theocrat

> Is that what I said?  I don't think so. 
> 
> Neither one of us is going to be any too happy with how this conversation turns out if you don't start answering the questions too.
> 
> I think you're behind by about 10.


Ronin, you said that you believe there is logic, which means that you believe in an entity known as Logic. All I'm asking (and Sola, too) is how do you know that it exists because if you cannot account for the existence of Logic, then you have no rational right to start a thread about there being "contradictions in the Bible" because contradictions assumes that there are laws of Logic.

To answer your questions (all of which are irrelevant to this thread, by the way), I'm not a Pharisee, but I do believe that there is cognitive dissonance, which is why I've asked you about Logic.

----------


## lilymc

Every single so-called bible contradiction can be answered, for anyone who genuinely cares to know the truth.

Posting a long list of 'contradictions' is a very common tactic by atheists or others who try to disprove the bible, and they do that for obvious reasons.... because it takes time to write out complete and thoughtful replies to each and every one of those.  If we had the whole day to spare, we could go through each of those.   But usually (not always) the person who posts lists like that does not genuinely want to understand, but they post stuff like this for their own agenda.

----------


## lilymc

> What basis do you have to deny laws of logic? How do you know they don't exist? Those two will be okay on their own.


I don't think he's denying the laws of logic.  They are challenging Ronin on that topic.

I think it's better to ask an atheist that question.... because atheists have no way to account for the laws of logic.  But Ronin is not an atheist, so....I'm not sure why they're taking the time to go there with him.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Ronin, you said that you believe there is logic, which means that you believe in an entity known as Logic. All I'm asking (and Sola, too) is how do you know that it exists because if you cannot account for the existence of Logic, then you have no rational right to start a thread about there being "contradictions in the Bible" because contradictions assumes that there are laws of Logic.
> 
> To answer your questions (all of which are irrelevant to this thread, by the way), I'm not a Pharisee, but I do believe that there is cognitive dissonance, which is why I've asked you about Logic.


Well I'm just attempting to account for your disbelief in "some" clear Biblical contradictions (so called). 

Cognitive dissonance is my current favorite most likely theoretical explanation.

There is A and there is not A. If you want to call that logic then it's OK with me.

Are you sure you're not a Pharisee? 

If so how?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I'm not sure why they're taking the time to go there with him.


I do.

Hey, btw, since you popped in here, if you get a chance and have some time, please consider sharing a good once over with regard to my thought in post #10. It doesn't have to be in this thread. Thanks.

----------


## lilymc

> I do.


Why?

----------


## Theocrat

> Well I'm just attempting to account for your disbelief in "some" clear Biblical contradictions (so called). 
> 
> Cognitive dissonance is my current favorite most likely theoretical explanation.
> 
> There is A and there is not A. If you want to call that logic then it's OK with me.
> 
> Are you sure you're not a Pharisee? 
> 
> If so how?


You can't call *any of them* "contradictions" if you don't, first, have an objective and universal basis for there being laws of Logic. After all, what's wrong with "contradictions" if there are no laws of Logic that make contradictions absurd, Ronin?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Originally Posted by *Natural Citizen*
> 
> I do.
> 
> 
> Why?


Because I've had this debate many, many times. 

So, then, I'll likely watch along with S_F, lily.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> You can't call *any of them* "contradictions" if you don't, first, have an objective and universal basis for there being laws of Logic. After all, what's wrong with "contradictions" if there are no laws of Logic that make contradictions absurd, Ronin?


 Wow, you seem to have a whole bunch of made up rules. 

Did you happen to get any of them from the atheist pagan Greeks?

Is logic logical? What are the axioms?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Well I'm just attempting to account for your disbelief in "some" clear Biblical contradictions (so called). 
> 
> Cognitive dissonance is my current favorite most likely theoretical explanation.
> 
> There is A and there is not A. If you want to call that logic then it's OK with me.
> 
> Are you sure you're not a Pharisee? 
> 
> If so how?


Ronin, I don't see anything to indicate TER is a pharisee.  You can easily make that case about Sola_Fide and others who take his approach, but TER, not so much.  Can you link to a post or 2 that indicates TER is a pharisee?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Wow, you seem to have a whole bunch of made up rules. 
> 
> Did you happen to get any of them from the atheist pagan Greeks?
> 
> Is logic logical? What are the axioms?


It seems he's pointing out the fallacy fallacy used in your post about contradictions-though he's going about it in a rather roundabout sort of way.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

----------


## Theocrat

> Wow, you seem to have a whole bunch of made up rules.  
> 
> Did you happen to get any of them from the atheist Greeks?
> 
> Is logic logical?   What are the axioms?


You have a rule, too, Ronin. Apparently, you think contradictions are bad, which is why you've started a thread on there being 101 "clear contradictions" in the Bible. But, once again, what rule are you using to state that it's wrong for the Bible to (allegedly) contradict itself? Until you account for that rule, then you are just making things up, that is, you're being arbitrary. And if you want to be arbitrary, then I can be equally arbitrary by stating that those "101 clear contradictions" are not contradictions at all, without giving you a Biblical, exegetical case for any of them.

----------


## Jamesiv1

another painfully boring derailment about *LOGIC!!!!* blah blah blah.....

"Good heavens, Miss Sakamoto! You're beautiful!!"

----------


## Theocrat

> It seems he's pointing out the fallacy fallacy used in your post about contradictions-though he's going about it in a rather roundabout sort of way.
> 
> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy


No, the problem is Ronin Truth has assumed the very thing that he needs to prove *before* he engages in "exposing" 101 "clear contradictions" in Scripture. He has taken something for granted, but now he's being called out on it, and he cannot give us a straight answer on where he's coming from. That's the problem right there, philosophically speaking.

----------


## Theocrat

> another painfully boring derailment about *LOGIC!!!!* blah blah blah.....
> 
> "Good heavens, Miss Sakamoto! You're beautiful!!"


A discussion on Logic is no derailment at all. Contradictions assume that there are laws of Logic. All I'm asking Ronin Truth is how does he know that Logic exists, in terms of his own worldview, and how does he account for those laws. I haven't heard his case yet, although he's trying to derail the thread by throwing questions at me which are irrelevant to this thread.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Ronin, you said that you believe there is logic, which means that you believe in an entity known as Logic. All I'm asking (and Sola, too) is how do you know that it exists because if you cannot account for the existence of Logic, then you have no rational right to start a thread about there being "contradictions in the Bible" because contradictions assumes that there are laws of Logic.
> 
> To answer your questions (all of which are irrelevant to this thread, by the way), I'm not a Pharisee, but I do believe that there is cognitive dissonance, which is why I've asked you about Logic.


Belief is not equal to knowledge. Perhaps my belief in logic is just faith based.

----------


## Theocrat

> Belief is not equal to knowledge. Perhaps my belief in logic is just faith based.


So, you have no objective, rational basis for believing that Logic exists, Ronin?

----------


## phill4paul

> another painfully boring derailment about *LOGIC!!!!* blah blah blah.....
> 
> "Good heavens, Miss Sakamoto! You're beautiful!!"


  I'd blame the whole thing on not having a good editor. When publishing one would do well to retain one.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> You have a rule, too, Ronin. Apparently, you think contradictions are bad, which is why you've started a thread on there being 101 "clear contradictions" in the Bible. But, once again, what rule are you using to state that it's wrong for the Bible to (allegedly) contradict itself? Until you account for that rule, then you are just making things up, that is, you're being arbitrary. And if you want to be arbitrary, then I can be equally arbitrary by stating that those "101 clear contradictions" are not contradictions at all, without giving you a Biblical, exegetical case for any of them.


  Well now you're still just making more things up.  Where did I say bad? Where did I say wrong?  

You can BELIEVE and SAY whatever you wish.  You may even be arbitrary, if you wish.  

I doesn't really do anything to explain and account for any multiple different answers to simple Bible reported and stated situations, now does it?

----------


## Theocrat

> Well now you're still just making more things up.  Where did I say bad? Where did I say wrong?  
> 
> You can BELIEVE and SAY whatever you wish.  You may even be arbitrary, if you wish.  
> 
> I doesn't really do anything to explain and account for any multiple different answers to simple Bible reported and stated situations, now does it?


If you don't believe that contradictions are bad, wrong, absurd, etc., then what was your reason for starting a thread on "101 Clear Contradictions in the Bible"?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Ronin, I don't see anything to indicate TER is a pharisee. You can easily make that case about Sola_Fide and others who take his approach, but TER, not so much. Can you link to a post or 2 that indicates TER is a pharisee?


I didn't know that TER was Theocrat. When did that happen?

He was asking questions, so I was asking questions.

----------


## Ronin Truth

Pre logic:

One cave man says Og was killed by a bear, another cave man says Og was killed by a tiger.

That's a contradiction. Someone or both is wrong or is lying.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> If you don't believe that contradictions are bad, wrong, absurd, etc., then what was your reason for starting a thread on "101 Clear Contradictions in the Bible"?


Hoped for interesting conversations? (Yeah, that's the ticket.)   

So far, I'd hafta say only so-so.

----------


## Theocrat

> I didn't know that TER was Theocrat. When did that happen?
> 
> He was asking questions, so I was asking questions.


[Lol] I am not "Today's Epistle Reading" (or "TER"). He's an Eastern Orthodox Christian, while I'm a Presbyterian/Reformed Christian. I think that HB34 just mistook me for him.

----------


## Theocrat

> Hoped for interesting conversations? (Yeah, that's the ticket.)   
> 
> So far, I'd hafta say only so-so.


Then it's safe to say that you really don't know if those are contradictions in the Bible, do you, Ronin?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> No, the problem is Ronin Truth has assumed the very thing that he needs to prove *before* he engages in "exposing" 101 "clear contradictions" in Scripture. He has taken something for granted, but now he's being called out on it, and he cannot give us a straight answer on where he's coming from. That's the problem right there, philosophically speaking.


No I don't. 

And I'm coming from a planet in Andromeda, if it's all the same to you.  (Or even if it's not, OK.)

----------


## phill4paul

> Pre logic:
> 
> One cave man says Og was killed by a bear, another cave man says Og was killed by a tiger.
> 
> That's a contradiction. Someone or both is wrong or is lying.


  If it were a Tigear I could totally understand the contradiction.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Then it's safe to say that you really don't know if those are contradictions in the Bible, do you, Ronin?


In my experience with you today, nothing yet you have had to say is safe. 

Attempting to put false words in my mouth is both reprehensible and intellectually dishonest. 

That does tend to also suggest that you are a Paulinist.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> So, you have no objective, rational basis for believing that Logic exists, Ronin?


What part of 'perhaps' is causing you the difficulties?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> [Lol] I am not "Today's Epistle Reading" (or "TER"). He's an Eastern Orthodox Christian, while I'm a Presbyterian/Reformed Christian. I think that HB34 just mistook me for him.


Sometimes he's just a goober, and often way too quick on the trigger.

Thanks for resolving that contradiction.  It's a start.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> So, you have no objective, rational basis for believing that Logic exists, Ronin?


Once you guys settle your dispute, I'd like to go back to this, please. Well...I had specifically asked S_F but I think you're following in where he wanted to go with it. I just wantto touch on some things. Predicate logic, Existential quantification and a few other things. Well...for starters. Mind and matter stuff essentially. Thanks.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> If it were a Tigear I could totally understand the contradiction.


Og was nowhere near what is now called Alaska.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Once you guys settle your dispute, I'd like to go back to this, please. Well...I had specifically asked S_F but I think you're following in where he wanted to go with it. I just wantto touch on some things. Predicate logic, Existential quantification and a few other things. Well...for starters. Mind and matter stuff essentially. Thanks.


Sounds like a much different thread topic to me.   I'd say go for it.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> So, you have no objective, rational basis for believing that Logic exists, Ronin?


When did beliefs start requiring any objective rational basis.  

Is reason rational? 

Are there any subjective basis?

Does any of this have anything at all to do with truth?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Sounds like a much different thread topic to me.   I'd say go for it.


No, it isn't. It is directly germane to the question that S_F asked as well as the same question you're answering for Theo.Which, btw, isn't relative to the op either. As well, it is germane to the question that I asked S_F in response to his question. And an answer certainly did not come from S_F, now, did it? And there is a reason that an answer didn't come. Oh, yes, indeedy...

----------


## Ronin Truth

Here's a few more of whatever they are preferably called. ( Questionable anomalies? )




> According to the Gospel of John, what did Jesus say about bearing his own witness?
> (a) “If I bear witness to myself, my testimony is not true” (John 5:3 1)
> (b) “Even if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true” (John 8:14)
> 
> When Jesus entered Jerusalem did he cleanse the temple that same day?
> (a) Yes (Matthew 21:12)
> (b) No. He went into the temple and looked around, but since it was very late he did nothing. Instead, he went to Bethany to spend the night and returned the next morning to cleanse the temple (Mark I 1:1- 17).
> 
> The Gospels say that Jesus cursed a fig tree. Did the tree wither at once?
> ...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I didn't know that TER was Theocrat. When did that happen?
> 
> He was asking questions, so I was asking questions.


Beg your pardon.   I meant to type Theocrat.  They're different people entirely.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Sometimes he's just a goober, and often way too quick on the trigger.


Everyone on the internets has made similar mistakes at some point or another, brother.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Meh. Ronin, I think you have to have a grasp on the structure of the Bible itself. The way that it is written. Which, I'll admit, I don't. And, so, yes...we ask people who we assume do. That's how the so called contradictions have to be addressed in a forum setting like this. I don't know. Would be nice if one of our biblical scholars would chime in on that aspect as opposed to what we've seen in response thus far.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> All I'm asking (and Sola, too) is how do you know that it exists because if you cannot account for the existence of Logic, then you have no rational right to start a thread about there being "contradictions in the Bible" because contradictions assumes that there are laws of Logic.


I call bull$#@!.  Since both you and Ronin appear to agree that the laws of logic exist, it's completely irrelevant where they came from.  Instead of attempting to explain away the apparent contradictions, you are altering the debate to try to show that the laws must have come from God.  But whether they did or not has nothing whatsoever to do with resolving the inconsistencies.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I call bull$#@!.  Since both you and Ronin appear to agree that the laws of logic exist, *it's completely irrelevant where they came from.*  Instead of attempting to explain away the apparent contradictions, you are altering the debate to try to show that the laws must have come from God.  But whether they did or not has nothing whatsoever to do with resolving the inconsistencies.


Not really.  If there's no standard of Truth (origin of logic), all our arguments are just opinions, no matter how well constructed.

----------


## phill4paul

> Og was nowhere near what is now called Alaska.


  I'm waiting on the History Channels mini-series special on the hunt for Og in Alaska. The History channel is kinda definitive in a vague sort of way.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Well I'm just attempting to account for your disbelief in "some" clear Biblical contradictions (so called). 
> 
> Cognitive dissonance is my current favorite most likely theoretical explanation.
> 
> There is A and there is not A. If you want to call that logic then it's OK with me.
> 
> Are you sure you're not a Pharisee? 
> 
> If so how?


Why aren't you trying to account for your own belief in these contradictions instead of trying to account for his *dis*belief?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I call bull$#@!.  Since both you and Ronin appear to agree that the laws of logic exist, it's completely irrelevant where they came from.  Instead of attempting to explain away the apparent contradictions, you are altering the debate to try to show that the laws must have come from God.


#7 

Give that man a prize.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> another painfully boring derailment about *LOGIC!!!!* blah blah blah.....
> 
> "Good heavens, Miss Sakamoto! You're beautiful!!"


It's not a derailment if you would just take the time to understand why.  Logic is a necessary prerequisite for thinking contradictions are absurd, and you can't explain why something aren't contradictions to someone who thinks they can prove things are absurd by using their arbitrary sense of absurdity.  All anyone has to do is prove that one of those things aren't necessarily contradictions and then it follows that Ronin doesn't actually know if any of them are contradictions.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Belief is not equal to knowledge. Perhaps my belief in logic is just faith based.


That's exactly the point.  You can't account for them, but you have faith in them, and then you want to say that faith in God is unreasonable.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> That's exactly the point.  You can't account for them, but you have faith in them, and then you want to say that faith in God is unreasonable.


_Noooo._ The point is the "contradiction" of the Bible verses in the op. What do you have to contribute with regard to those? Could you please explain the phenomenon? Thank you. As it is, you're off topic. I don't believe that the thread was introduced to debate deities or compare who's faith is correct and who's is not. Well...unless it was a group effort to create an illusion.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> When did beliefs start requiring any objective rational basis.  
> 
> Is reason rational? 
> 
> Are there any subjective basis?
> 
> Does any of this have anything at all to do with truth?


Beliefs have always required objective rational bases in order to be reasonable.  If you don't think your beliefs are reasonable, then why do you believe them?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> _Noooo._ The point is the "contradiction" of the Bible verses in the op. What do you have to contribute with regard to those? Could you please explain the phenomenon? Thank you. As it is, you're off topic. I don't believe that the thread was introduced to debate deities or compare who's faith is correct and who's is not. Well...unless it was a group effort to create an illusion.


I actually agree, I just don't like it when people avoid the question of logic by positing faith when it's quite obvious that they think faith in the Bible is unreasonable.

----------


## erowe1

I stopped reading after the first one, since it obviously wasn't a contradiction.

It says something to me that when people try to come up with lists like this they have to resort to such obviously wrong claims.

One would think that somebody trying to prove a case would put forward their best evidence, and if this is the best evidence for the Bible not being inspired by God, then there is no case.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I call bull$#@!.  Since both you and Ronin appear to agree that the laws of logic exist, it's completely irrelevant where they came from.  Instead of attempting to explain away the apparent contradictions, you are altering the debate to try to show that the laws must have come from God.  But whether they did or not has nothing whatsoever to do with resolving the inconsistencies.


The issue with this entire thread, as I understand it, is that he's engaging in a Gish Gallop by posting more than anyone would reasonable spend the time to answer in full only to find that their answers are somehow unacceptable for some reason.  

I would, however, be willing to answer one of these "contradictions" if the opposition concedes that all I have to do is negate a single one of these contradictions in order to show that Ronin doesn't actually know if any of these are contradictions.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I actually agree, I just don't like it when people avoid the question of logic by positing faith when it's quite obvious that they think faith in the Bible is unreasonable.


I think there is just some skullduggery driving this thread, Paul. And, so, that said, I'll just shut my mouth for a while about it. 

I am actually very interested in the structure/timeline of much of the writings that appear contradictory. That would be an interesting discussion. I mean, I could learn from a discussion like that. Cripes, we have enough people around here who are literate to the Bibles infrastructure. You know? I think this is a rigged debate, though, so far as I've seen.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I stopped reading after the first one, since it obviously wasn't a contradiction.
> 
> It says something to me that when people try to come up with lists like this they have to resort to such obviously wrong claims.
> 
> One would think that somebody trying to prove a case would put forward their best evidence, and if this is the best evidence for the Bible not being inspired by God, then there is no case.


Agreed.  I think Ronin should put forward his best single contradiction out of that list so we can tear it apart and he can admit he has no idea if any of them are really contradictions.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I think there is just some skullduggery driving this thread, Paul. And, so, that said, I'll just shut my mouth for a while about it. 
> 
> I am actually very interested in the structure/timeline of much of the writings that appear contradictory. That would be an interesting discussion. I mean, I could learn from a discussion like that. Cripes, we have enough people around here who are literate to the Bibles infrastructure. You know? I think this is a rigged debate, though, so far as I've seen.


The problem is that people who reject the Bible's authority have a vested interest in not trying to understand why or how the two things are compatible.  If you want to study the Bible on an objective basis, then you can't do it if you start your examination of it with the assumption that the Bible is false.  If you do that, then OF COURSE you're going to find contradictions! 

The problem is that people can't reasonably be expected to just hang up their _a priori_ beliefs before beginning their reading of the Bible, so it's best for the unbeliever to admit he doesn't know if any of these contradictions are truly contradictory and not try to pose as some neutral observer who just stumbled upon something that doesn't make sense.

----------


## otherone

> The problem is that people who reject the Bible's authority have a vested interest in not trying to understand why or how the two things are compatible.  _If you want to study the Bible on an objective basis_, then you can't do it if you start your examination of it with the assumption that the Bible is false.  If you do that, then OF COURSE you're going to find contradictions!


Will an objective reader not see the items in the OP as inconsistent?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Will an objective reader not see the items in the OP as inconsistent?


Not necessarily.  If they want to prove that there are inconsistencies, then they have a heavy burden of proof.  It's not enough to post a long list of things you perceive as contradictions if nobody even knows why you think they're contradictions.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> The problem is that people who reject the Bible's authority have a vested interest in not trying to understand why or how the two things are compatible.  If you want to study the Bible on an objective basis, then you can't do it if you start your examination of it with the assumption that the Bible is false.  If you do that, then OF COURSE you're going to find contradictions! 
> 
> The problem is that people can't reasonably be expected to just hang up their _a priori_ beliefs before beginning their reading of the Bible, so it's best for the unbeliever to admit he doesn't know if any of these contradictions are truly contradictory and not try to pose as some neutral observer who just stumbled upon something that doesn't make sense.


I get that. And I can accept that, Paul. I really can. But I'll tell you man, it annoys me to no end when it's made into a game of cat and mouse the way it is. Every freakin time. Gosh.  It just sucks the energy right out of me to have to sit through that the way it evolves. I'm a say what you want to say and be done with it kind of person.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I get that. And I can accept that, Paul. I really can. But I'll tell you man, it annoys me to no end when *it's made into a game of cat and mouse the way it is.* Every freakin time. Gosh.  It just sucks the energy right out of me to have to sit through that the way it evolves. I'm a say what you want to say and be done with it kind of person.


Are you referring to the presupposition of logic that Theo brought up?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Are you referring to the presupposition of logic that Theo brought up?


I'm talking about assumptions everywhere. Branded assumptions. But Theo's (and S_F's) assumptions become a bit more intricate. And, for me, specifically, because I have a background in the study of the nature of the universe, I take a bit of issue with what I read from them. More specifically, the question that they asked in synergy. Their terms of controversy were both loaded and strategic for the purpose of their mission/cause in my view. And I'm not sure that Ronin wasn't playing along with them now. And we see this evolve in instances where people are at the receiving end of conversion tactics without knowing that they are on the receiving end. That's another discussion but relevant here none the less. And we have sooooooo many different brands of Christian that it becomes a kind of dishonest approach the way that they attempt it. 

Regardless of that, I question the honesty of the purpose of this thread. I'm just going to keep my mouth shut about it for the moment. 

I know why you're asking me that but I'm not having that discussion here in this thread, Paul. I will if it comes up in a healthy thread, though.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I'm talking about assumptions everywhere. Branded assumptions. But Theo's (and S_F's) assumptions become a bit more intricate. And, for me, specifically, because I have a background in the study of the nature of the universe, I take a bit of issue with what I read from them. More specifically, the question that they asked in synergy. Their terms of controversy were both loaded and strategic for the purpose of their mission/cause in my view. And I'm not sure that Ronin wasn't playing along with them now. And we see this evolve in instances where people are at the receiving end of conversion tactics without knowing that they are on the receiving end. That's another discussion but relevant here none the less. And we have sooooooo many* different brands of Christian that it becomes a kind of dishonest approach the way that they attempt it.*


I don't see what different brands of Christianity have to do with the basis for logical absolutes.  That said, I kind of agree that I would rather Theo allowed Ronin's presupposition of the validity of logic because Ronin still hasn't provided any explanation for why these supposed contradictions are actually contradictions.  If he thinks he can just spit out a bunch of verses taken out of context and thereby prove that the Bible is false, then he is sorely mistaken on how logic even works, never mind how he can justify it.  He has the burden of proof so he needs to act like it in order to be taken seriously.  




> Regardless of that, I question the honesty of the purpose of this thread. I'm just going to keep my mouth shut about it for the moment.


I do, too, because Ronin is obviously engaging in a Gish Gallop by trying to ensnare people in an endless maze of objections that they can never completely respond to and when they answer some, he'll say they didn't answer others and the Gallop continues.  As I've said before, he needs to get off his high horse and realize where the burden of proof really rests.  




> I know why you're asking me that but I'm not having that discussion here in this thread, Paul. I will if it comes up in a healthy thread, though.


I'm not sure if you do.  I was really just curious because I actually agree to some extent, although I shy away from saying it's not a valid objection.  It is, but it's not the way I would handle it.

----------


## erowe1

> Well I'm just attempting to account for your disbelief in "some" clear Biblical contradictions (so called).


Some? Are there any at all? If so, why are you not able to produce any?

----------


## Crashland

> Not necessarily.  If they want to prove that there are inconsistencies, then they have a heavy burden of proof.  It's not enough to post a long list of things you perceive as contradictions if nobody even knows why you think they're contradictions.


I would assume the reason they can be viewed as contradictions is that there are two different answers to the same question which cannot both be true. The chapters/verses given are to demonstrate the two different answers to the same question, and for most of them the mutual exclusivity is inferred from common sense. It's not exactly a deep argument this way, but it does show that there do _appear_ to be inconsistencies or contradictions if one is to take the Bible at face value. Of course, maybe they can all be "exegesis'd" away. So it is probably better to take the issues on one at a time.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I would assume the reason they can be viewed as contradictions is that there are two different answers to the same question which cannot both be true. The chapters/verses given are to demonstrate the two different answers to the same question, and for most of them the mutual exclusivity is inferred from common sense. It's not exactly a deep argument this way, but it does show that there do _appear_ to be inconsistencies or contradictions if one is to take the Bible at face value. Of course, maybe they can all be "exegesis'd" away. So it is probably better to take the issues on one at a time.


It all depends on context, so I see no evidence that any of the supposed contradictory passages cannot both be true.  If you are going to say that, then present your best example so we can examine it and give you an answer.  You may not like the answer, but if you are going to say that these contradictions actually exist, then you have to prove it.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> It all depends on context...



I agree with you here. Now, why we aren't going in that direction to maybe explain the infrastructure of the Bible to "non-believers" (I don't like that word but I'll roll with it here) baffles me. I mean, do we really need to pick certain verses? I don't think so. Why not a once over on the infrastructure of the Bible itself?

----------


## acptulsa

Some being had to invent logic?  Really?

Weak, guys.  Of all the things mankind has learned about that are difficult to explain through random chance.  The Big Bang, life coming to exist in the 'primordial soup', evolution--there are a lot of things atheists try to use science to explain, but about which science can only say, 'Well, if you have billions of years it could conceivably happen that way.'  Which is a cop out.

But logic?  Really?  What is logical can't be logical unless some higher power makes it so?  Not even slightly convincing.




> The problem is that people who reject the Bible's authority have a vested interest in not trying to understand why or how the two things are compatible.  If you want to study the Bible on an objective basis, then you can't do it if you start your examination of it with the assumption that the Bible is false.  If you do that, then OF COURSE you're going to find contradictions!


And if you have a vested interest in calling every single solitary word of the Bible the Revealed Word of God so you can search it for loopholes--even to the point of saying the Holy Spirit had just as firm control of St. Paul's writing hand as the speech of God in the Person of Jesus--then you won't find a contradiction if one bites you on the ass.  Of all the logical two-way streets in the universe...




> I don't see what different brands of Christianity have to do with the basis for logical absolutes.  That said, I kind of agree that I would rather Theo allowed Ronin's presupposition of the validity of logic because Ronin still hasn't provided any explanation for why these supposed contradictions are actually contradictions.


Near as I can tell, all of those contradictions contradict the simple mathematical postulate that if _x_ does not equal _y_, then _x_ does not equal _y._  There's nothing particularly difficult about that.

No, friends, if you want to convert an atheist, 'God had to invent logic therefore if God says three thousand = seven thousand it's logical' is absolutely not your best argument.  This stuff is great for intra-nicene fratricide, but there isn't an atheist--and probably isn't a single agnostic either--who will do anything but laugh at you for spewing it their direction.

And you may consider Ronin Truth inscrutable.  But I think you're preaching to the choir.  Anyone who hates St. Paul this much for inventing 'Loophole-Seeking "Christians"' and Pharisees this much for 'holding the keys to the Kingdom but neither entering nor helping others to enter' is highly likely to love Jesus very, very much.  Atheists couldn't give less of a damn how often (by any _objective_ standard of logic) Paul contradicts and naysays Jesus.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I agree with you here. Now, why we aren't going in that direction to maybe explain the infrastructure of the Bible to "non-believers" (I don't like that word but I'll roll with it here) baffles me. I mean, do we really need to pick certain verses? I don't think so. Why not a once over on the infrastructure of the Bible itself?


Because:
1) These supposed contradictions come with no explanations as to why they can't both be true
2) I don't want to waste time answering a few just to find that the answers weren't satisfactory for some reason or the OP didn't think those were 'the best ones'.
3) I'm not going to do an in-depth Bible study with someone who doesn't even want to understand.
4) The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim that these cannot both be true.  

Someone who really wants to understand will ask why the Scriptures say both of these things and then try to find out instead of assuming they're contradictions and asking other people to prove that they're not.

I'm giving the OP or anyone who wants to take part the opportunity to provide their best case for a contradiction so I don't run around like a chicken with my head cut off trying to respond to hundreds of supposed contradictions that don't satisfy people.  If you want to hear an explanation, then please provide your best example with an explanation of why you think it's such a good example.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Because:
> 1) These supposed contradictions come with no explanations as to why they can't both be true
> 2) I don't want to waste time answering a few just to find that the answers weren't satisfactory for some reason or the OP didn't think those were 'the best ones'.
> 3) I'm not going to do an in-depth Bible study with someone who doesn't even want to understand.
> 4) The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim that these cannot both be true.  
> 
> Someone who really wants to understand will ask why the Scriptures say both of these things and then try to find out instead of assuming they're contradictions and asking other people to prove that they're not.
> 
> I'm giving the OP or anyone who wants to take part the opportunity to provide their best case for a contradiction so I don't run around like a chicken with my head cut off trying to respond to hundreds of supposed contradictions that don't satisfy people.  If you want to hear an explanation, then please provide your best example with an explanation of why you think it's such a good example.


Yeah, I don't think you're on the same page with me here, Paul. I'm not looking to find answers to so the called contradictions themselves. Of course, I'm just talking about myself here. Not so much otyhers. I understand your position in that someone who really wants to understand will ask why the Scriptures say both of these things and then try to find out instead of assuming they're contradictions but I'm not assuming contradiction, per se. 

I'm just going to take a break from the forum for a while anyhow. Actually, I have lunch meeting this week with a woman who just happens to be a blblical scholar. I might run some questions by her once that's over. I'm more interested in the infrastructure of the Bible rather than nitpicking specific verses.

Good luck, man.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Some being had to invent logic?  Really?
> 
> Weak, guys.  Of all the things mankind has learned about that are difficult to explain through random chance.  The Big Bang, life coming to exist in the 'primordial soup', evolution--there are a lot of things atheists try to use science to explain, but about which science can only say, 'Well, if you have billions of years it could conceivably happen that way.'  Which is a cop out.
> 
> But logic?  Really?  What is logical can't be logical unless some higher power makes it so?  Not even slightly convincing.


I still haven't heard anyone provide a good basis for it on atheism.  The laws of logic are conceptual, not physical, so how can they be conceptual without a mind to conceive them?  They can't be dependent on our minds because they are true regardless of whether we exist to conceive of them or not.  




> And if you have a vested interest in calling every single solitary word of the Bible the Revealed Word of God so you can search it for loopholes--even to the point of saying the Holy Spirit had just as firm control of St. Paul's writing hand as the speech of God in the Person of Jesus--then you won't find a contradiction if one bites you on the ass.  Of all the logical two-way streets in the universe...


That's exactly the point.  We both have a vested interest in understanding it a certain way, but you can't say that your way is better than mine, so if you want to prove that two things in the Bible cannot both be true, then it's your burden of proof to appeal to logic to show that they cannot both be true to any rationally thinking person.  To call them "loopholes" is to automatically assume that your explanation is more valid than mine, so I want to see your one (1) best example.




> Near as I can tell, all of those contradictions contradict the simple mathematical postulate that if _x_ does not equal _y_, then _x_ does not equal _y._  There's nothing particularly difficult about that.


That is a gross oversimplification of the matter.  If I write down an account of how I *thought*t x was y and then later in the account say that x is not y, then it doesn't necessarily follow that my account is contradictory.  It could be the case that I was simply giving an account of my *discovery* that x was not y.  If there's no reason to think that they can both be true and consistent, then you may have a valid point, but it is ludicrous to simply assume that things that seem contradictory on their face are contradictions until proven otherwise.  If we find supposed contradictions in accounts of the Revolutionary War, do we simply assume that they cannot be reconciled or do we try to find out why both things were said?  




> No, friends, if you want to convert an atheist, 'God had to invent logic therefore if God says three thousand = seven thousand it's logical' is absolutely not your best argument.  This stuff is great for intra-nicene fratricide, but there isn't an atheist--and probably isn't a single agnostic either--who will do anything but laugh at you for spewing it their direction.


It's not a convincing case for why they're not contradictions, of course, but it's still a valid question.  

I'm still waiting for someone to provide their best example.  




> And you may consider Ronin Truth inscrutable.  But I think you're preaching to the choir.  Anyone who hates St. Paul this much for inventing 'Loophole-Seeking "Christians"' and Pharisees this much for 'holding the keys to the Kingdom but neither entering nor helping others to enter' is highly likely to love Jesus very, very much.  Atheists couldn't give less of a damn how often (by any _objective_ standard of logic) Paul contradicts and naysays Jesus.


That's exactly the point.  I'm not going to waste my time on someone who doesn't give a damn, so I think I'm being pretty generous by offering the opportunity to present a best case for us Christians to respond to.  Of course you will call it a loophole because you're automatically going to assume that your interpretation is better than the people who actually study the Bible.

----------


## acptulsa

> I still haven't heard anyone provide a good basis for it on atheism.  The laws of logic are conceptual, not physical, so how can they be conceptual without a mind to conceive them?  They can't be dependent on our minds because they are true regardless of whether we exist to conceive of them or not.


*That* is exactly the point.  If they can exist with or without our minds, they can exist with or without any mind.  If a tree falls in the forest, the air still vibrates.

And if you don't perceive three thousand as different from seven thousand, then would you care to trade checks...?

----------


## Jamesiv1

> I'm more interested in the infrastructure of the Bible rather than nitpicking specific verses.


Hey Natural,

What do you mean by infrastructure?  This sounds like something I would be interested in, as well.

----------


## erowe1

> Some being had to invent logic?  Really?


Can you quote anyone saying that? I missed it if anyone did.

----------


## erowe1

> I'm more interested in the infrastructure of the Bible rather than nitpicking specific verses.


Same here. And, contradictions or not, the grand unifying message of the Bible (and yes there is one) is more important than the minor details. The one who believes that God speaks through the Bible could concede that there were contradictions in it and its message would still come out unscathed.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Some? Are there any at all? If so, why are you not able to produce any?


You figure it out.  It's your book. I'm not the producer, I'm just the messenger.

----------


## erowe1

> You figure it out.  It's your book. I'm not the producer, I'm just the messenger.


OK. So you concede the point. You cannot find any unresolvable contradictions in the Bible. Neither can I.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I'm waiting on the History Channels mini-series special on the hunt for Og in Alaska. The History channel is kinda definitive in a vague sort of way.


I imagine that it will have to be animated, because all of the original video got washed away in the flood.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Why aren't you trying to account for your own belief in these contradictions instead of trying to account for his *dis*belief?


As a problem solver my job is often only to resolve contradictions, not to believe them.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> That's exactly the point. You can't account for them, but you have faith in them, and then you want to say that faith in God is unreasonable.


You have absolutely NO blooming idea what I WANT to say until I say it.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Beliefs have always required objective rational bases in order to be reasonable. If you don't think your beliefs are reasonable, then why do you believe them?


 Always is a very long time. 

Why? Because some of them are really fun and interesting, to me. 

Why not? Are they damaging you in any way?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Agreed. I think Ronin should put forward his best single contradiction out of that list so we can tear it apart and he can admit he has no idea if any of them are really contradictions.


If you're so confident, get your crew together, parse them out and explain and tear them all apart.  Future generations of Paulinists will sing praises to your name.  

There may even be a sainthood in it for you, if you play your cards right.

----------


## erowe1

> You have absolutely NO blooming idea what I WANT to say until I say it.


Actually you're very predictable.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> It's not a derailment if you would just take the time to understand why. Logic is a necessary prerequisite for thinking contradictions are absurd, and you can't explain why something aren't contradictions to someone who thinks they can prove things are absurd by using their arbitrary sense of absurdity. All anyone has to do is prove that one of those things aren't necessarily contradictions and then it follows that Ronin doesn't actually know if any of them are contradictions.


Can you read? Got a bible? Look them up and check them out.  The book, chapter and verses are provided.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> OK. So you concede the point. You cannot find any unresolvable contradictions in the Bible. Neither can I.


Hardly.  And I certainly understand that you can't.  Your whole future career is probably dependent on your not being unable to.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> OK. So you concede the point. You cannot find any unresolvable contradictions in the Bible. Neither can I.


You saying he concedes is not the same thing as he conceding.

That's the difference between school and the real world lol

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> *That* is exactly the point.  If they can exist with or without our minds, they can exist with or without any mind.  If a tree falls in the forest, the air still vibrates.
> 
> And if you don't perceive three thousand as different from seven thousand, then would you care to trade checks...?


That is the fallacy of induction.  The fact that they can exist without our minds does not mean they can exist without any mind.  The fact that they are conceptual means there should be a mind to conceive of them, but the fact that they are not dependent on our minds just means that it is not our minds that possess it.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Not necessarily. If they want to prove that there are inconsistencies, then they have a heavy burden of proof. It's not enough to post a long list of things you perceive as contradictions if nobody even knows why you think they're contradictions.


What we think is totally irrelevant.  The book says what it says and has long before we were even born and regardless of our present and future thoughts.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Same here. And, contradictions or not, the grand unifying message of the Bible (and yes there is one) is more important than the minor details. The one who believes that God speaks through the Bible could concede that there were contradictions in it and its message would still come out unscathed.


While this may be true, I am not going to concede that until can be proven beyond a doubt.  Otherwise, there's no reason to think any of those things are contradictory.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You figure it out.  It's your book. I'm not the producer, I'm just the messenger.


What is there to figure out?  You still haven't provided evidence that there are any contradictions at all.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I agree with you here. Now, why we aren't going in that direction to maybe explain the infrastructure of the Bible to "non-believers" (I don't like that word but I'll roll with it here) baffles me. I mean, do we really need to pick certain verses? I don't think so. Why not a once over on the infrastructure of the Bible itself?


Start a thread and go for it.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You have absolutely NO blooming idea what I WANT to say until I say it.


I'm right, though, aren't I?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Always is a very long time.  
> 
> Why? Because some of them are really fun and interesting, to me.  
> 
> Why not?  Are the damaging you in any way?


I don't believe for a second that you just posted them because they are "fun and interesting" to you.  You said in the other thread that you hate the arrogance of Christians who think the Bible is inerrant (or something to that effect).  You posted these contradictions because you think they are some kind of problem for my belief and yet you refuse to offer any evidence.  Furthermore, you knew people would react this way when you posted them, so why would you post them unless you wanted to elicit such a response?  

All I'm doing is pointing out that your list is completely meaningless unless you offer some evidence for the contention that they are somehow a problem for my belief.  If you aren't saying that they are, then great, because that means you recognize that your interpretation of them as contradictions is not necessarily a good interpretation.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> If you're so confident, get your crew together, parse them out and explain and tear them all apart.  Future generations of Paulinists will sing praises to your name.  
> 
> There may even be a sainthood in it for you, if you play your cards right.


I don't have to explain anything until you provide evidence that there is something to be explained.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> What is there to figure out? You still haven't provided evidence that there are any contradictions at all.



The meaning of which word is causing your difficulties, 'evidence' or 'contradictions'?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evidence

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/contradictions

----------


## acptulsa

> That is the fallacy of induction.  The fact that they can exist without our minds does not mean they can exist without any mind.  The fact that they are conceptual means there should be a mind to conceive of them, but the fact that they are not dependent on our minds just means that it is not our minds that possess it.


You're long on double talk, short on checks.

One check for seven thousand, in exchange for one check for three thousand.  Simple trade.  If you truly have faith in what you say, that shouldn't be any problem at all.

If some of the other checks you wrote bounce, just call in a priest and hold an exigicism.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Can you read? Got a bible? Look them up and check them out.  The book, chapter and verses are provided.


Okay, I just did and none of them are contradictions.  I rebuke you.

Now, do you have an argument or am I supposed to take your word for it?

----------


## Jamesiv1

I rebuke all you guys.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> What we think is totally irrelevant.  The book says what it says and has long before we were even born and regardless of our present and future thoughts.


Yes, exactly, and many generations have somehow failed to see your supposed contradictions as a problem, so where is your evidence?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You're long on double talk, short on checks.
> 
> One check for seven thousand, in exchange for one check for three thousand.  Simple trade.  If you truly have faith in what you say, that shouldn't be any problem at all.
> 
> If some of the other checks you wrote bounce, just call in a priest and hold an exigicism.


No idea what you're on about.  You just used the fallacy of induction.  Am I wrong?

----------


## acptulsa

> No idea what you're on about.  You just used the fallacy of induction.  Am I wrong?


If you really think there is no difference between three thousand and seven thousand, put up.

Or shut up.  Either is good for me.

----------


## Ronin Truth

Due to overwhelming popular request and suggestion, the follow is provided:

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...62.p4i_DRvtCbA

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> If you really think there is no difference between three thousand and seven thousand, put up.
> 
> Or shut up.  Either is good for me.


You're going to have to be a bit more explicit than that.  You just used the fallacy of induction.  

*Am I wrong?*

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Due to overwhelming popular request and suggestion, the follow is provided:
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...62.p4i_DRvtCbA


I didn't see anyone request that.  I did, however, see a lot of people asking for evidence for your contention that there are contradictions in the Bible.  Do you have any or not?

----------


## acptulsa

> You're going to have to be a bit more explicit than that.  You just used the fallacy of induction.  
> 
> *Am I wrong?*


You can't exegize me

You going to put up?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You can't exegize me
> 
> You going to put up?


I just did.  Fallacy of induction.  Answer my question.

----------


## erowe1

> I rebuke all you guys.


I fart in your general direction.

----------


## erowe1

> Due to overwhelming popular request and suggestion, the follow is provided:
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...62.p4i_DRvtCbA


You're too much.

Oh, my side.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> You're too much.
> 
> Oh, my side.


  That's what she said.

----------


## acptulsa

> I just did.  Fallacy of induction.  Answer my question.


You're wrong.  Whether it's years of famine, or thousands of dollars, you seem to believe 7=3.  And like P.T. Barnum, I'd like to make four grand for nothing.  I'm not even making an argument.  You are.  I'm just offering you a chance to put your money where your rather overactive mouth is.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You're wrong.  Whether it's years of famine, or thousands of dollars, you seem to believe 7=3.  And like P.T. Barnum, I'd like to make four grand for nothing.  I'm not even making an argument.  You are.  I'm just offering you a chance to put your money where your rather overactive mouth is.


So you're not arguing that




> If they can exist with or without our minds, they can exist with or without any mind.


?

----------


## acptulsa

> So you're not arguing that
> 
> 
> 
> ?


Are you talking about thousands of dollars or years of drought?

Actually, it doesn't matter.  No, I'm not arguing about logic.  I'm arguing about numbers.

People who lob false allegations of fallacies ought not follow up by lobbing fallacies.

----------


## erowe1

> That's what she said.


I laughed.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Are you talking about thousands of dollars or years of drought?


Damn, dude, just answer the damn question.  What is your metaphor even referring to?  Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse?

----------


## Suzanimal

> Due to overwhelming popular request and suggestion, the follow is provided:
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...62.p4i_DRvtCbA





> I didn't see anyone request that.  I did, however, see a lot of people asking for evidence for your contention that there are contradictions in the Bible.  Do you have any or not?





> You're too much.
> 
> Oh, my side.





> That's what she said.


That _is_ what she said, lol.  

A Ronin thread without a google search just didn't feel right.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> That _is_ what she said, lol.  
> 
> A Ronin thread without a google search just didn't feel right.


Thank you, Darlin'.

----------


## Terry1

Well Ronin, I've looked at your contradictions, while there may indeed be some literal mistakes in context from Bible to Bible depending on who wrote it--the sad fact for you is that the Bible is spiritual and something that people pick up and read to seek God.  Some people read the word of God looking for contradictions for the purpose of using the book against God, Christians and believers as a whole because they've got some axe to grind with God.  Then some people who are genuinely seeking to know who God is read the book because they're looking for answers as to the reason why life is kicking their asses and the meaning behind it all.  

God is a spiritual being who does see and understand each and every individual heart and mind who's seeking Him and why.  He knows and intervenes on behalf of that person seeking in the Spirit.  Only God chooses whom He wants to give those spiritual keys to understanding to and when.

So you can and will find errors in most bibles--because they're written by people.  A true theological exegete studies and uses cross referencing to get to the closest source and origin of whatever that particular scripture is saying--which takes years of study to come to a good understanding as God intervenes and will give understanding to those who seek it in the Spirit.  This is why the Apostle said that we all see through the glass darkly in this life and will never get 100 percent accuracy--but close enough that we can spiritually see what God through the Holy Spirit is attempting to reveal to us.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Well Ronin, I've looked at your contradictions, while there may indeed be some literal mistakes in context from Bible to Bible depending on who wrote it--the sad fact for you is that the Bible is spiritual and something that people pick up and read to seek God. Some people read the word of God looking for contradictions for the purpose of using the book against God, Christians and believers as a whole because they've got some axe to grind with God. Then some people who are genuinely seeking to know who God is read the book because they're looking for answers as to the reason why life is kicking their asses and the meaning behind it all. 
> 
> God is a spiritual being who does see and understand each and every individual heart and mind who's seeking Him and why. He knows and intervenes on behalf of that person seeking in the Spirit. Only God chooses whom He wants to give those spiritual keys to understanding to and when.
> 
> So you can and will find errors in most bibles--because they're written by people. A true theological exegete studies and uses cross referencing to get to the closest source and origin of whatever that particular scripture is saying--which takes years of study to come to a good understanding as God intervenes and will give understanding to those who seek it in the Spirit. This is why the Apostle said that we all see through the glass darkly in this life and will never get 100 percent accuracy--but close enough that we can spiritually see what God through the Holy Spirit is attempting to reveal to us.


I believe the actual WORD OF GOD would be 100% accurate AND contain NO errors.   

So, get real believers and stop calling the Bible, the unerring WORD OF GOD.  

Cause more than obviously, it ain't.  Continually claiming that it is just makes you look foolish, and opens you to well deserved ridicule.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I believe the actual WORD OF GOD would be 100% accurate AND contain NO errors.   
> 
> So, get real believers and stop calling the Bible, the unerring WORD OF GOD.  
> 
> Cause more than obviously, it ain't.  Continually claiming that it is just makes you look foolish, and opens you to well deserved ridicule.


I completely disagree with Terry, and I'm still waiting for you to offer evidence for your claim that "more than obviously, it ain't."

----------


## Terry1

> I believe the actual WORD OF GOD would be 100% accurate AND contain NO errors.   
> 
> So, get real believers and stop calling the Bible, the unerring WORD OF GOD.  
> 
> Cause more than obviously, it ain't.  Continually claiming that it is just makes you look foolish, and opens you to well deserved ridicule.


Well--we are in agreement that I don't believe the *written word* is inerrant either--I know the written word has flaws.  The only possible inerrancy is the Holy Spirit's intervention to the sincere seekers of God and His Holy Spirit.  Only the Holy Spirit is inerrant and the revelations of truth that flow from Him to the believer reading the word of God.  And here again is why we have so many misinterpreting scripture is because they haven't been seeking in the Spirit and had those meanings spiritually opened up to them.  Do you agree with that?

----------


## Terry1

> I completely disagree with Terry, and I'm still waiting for you to offer evidence for your claim that "more than obviously, it ain't."


What in particular do you disagree with?

----------


## acptulsa

> Damn, dude, just answer the damn question.  What is your metaphor even referring to?  Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse?


When I said that if logic can exist whether we conceive of it or not, it can exist whether God conceives it or not, that is not a metaphor.

And neither are thousands of dollars, years of drought, or the fact that numbers are numbers whatever they're counting.

You're accusing me of making metaphors when I'm not.  That would be three fallacies in a row.  Three strikes and you're out.  Three fallacies in a row, and you're beneath my consideration.  So, I'm out.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Well--we are in agreement that I don't believe the *written word* is inerrant either--I know the written word has flaws.  The only possible inerrancy is the Holy Spirit's intervention to the sincere seekers of God and His Holy Spirit.  Only the Holy Spirit is inerrant and the revelations of truth that flow from Him to the believer reading the word of God.  And here again is why we have so many misinterpreting scripture is because they haven't been seeking in the Spirit and had those meanings spiritually opened up to them.  Do you agree with that?


You're doing a great disservice to your faith.  There's no evidence that the word of God has flaws.  Some of the translations may not be completely accurate, but it's a good thing we still have the original manuscripts.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> When I said that if logic can exist whether we conceive of it or not, it can exist whether God conceives it or not, that is not a metaphor.
> 
> And neither are thousands of dollars, years of drought, or the fact that numbers are numbers whatever they're counting.
> 
> You're accusing me of making metaphors when I'm not.  That would be three fallacies in a row.  Three strikes and you're out.  Three fallacies in a row, and you're beneath my consideration.  So, I'm out.


LOL

You didn't even list the fallacies.  Accusing you of using metaphors is not a fallacy anyway.  If you want to run away, fine with me.

I expected you to give a logical defense for your statement, not make a vague reference to dollars and droughts.

I've gotten used to people trying to duck out of a conversation by claiming it's "beneath them."  Right... go ahead and tell yourself that.

----------


## Terry1

> You're doing a great disservice to your faith.  There's no evidence that the word of God has flaws.  Some of the translations may not be completely accurate, but it's a good thing we still have the original manuscripts.


You just contradicted yourself.  If the word of God has "no flaws" as in the written Bible--then how can you say then "that it may not be completely accurate"?

----------


## Ronin Truth

Logic is only a man made tool.  It is not binding on God in any way.  His universe, he can do as he pleases.

----------


## Jamesiv1

You guys are jukin' for another rebukin'.

Don't make me do it, because I will.

----------


## acptulsa

> LOL
> 
> You didn't even list the fallacies.  Accusing you of using metaphors is not a fallacy anyway.  If you want to run away, fine with me.
> 
> I expected you to give a logical defense for your statement, not make a vague reference to dollars and droughts.


The first fallacy was accusing me of a fallacy I never resorted to.  The second was trying to drag a statement I had made earlier on another subject into it as though it were relevant.  The third was accusing me of using a metaphor, because if I did not, then the statement is fallacious.

And I'm sure you would happily tell yourself it was a victory if you drove everyone out of this thread who tried to keep you honest.  I'm sure you could convince yourself that by being stubborn you convinced everyone that three years of drought is the same as seven years of drought.  Which certainly doesn't speak well of your humanity, considering how many millions more are likely to die in a seven year drought...

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I completely disagree with Terry, and I'm still waiting for you to offer evidence for your claim that "more than obviously, it ain't."


This too dificult for you?

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...62.p4i_DRvtCbA

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You just contradicted yourself.  If the word of God has "no flaws" as in the written Bible--then how can you say then "that it may not be completely accurate"?


The translations have flaws, not the word of God, by which I mean the original Greek manuscripts.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Logic is only a man made tool.  It is not binding on God in any way.  His universe, he can do as he pleases.


Ok, then what is your basis for saying the Bible has "contradictions"?

----------


## Terry1

> The translations have flaws, not the word of God, by which I mean the original Greek manuscripts.


Which original Greek manuscripts?  Are you talking about the Septuagint?

----------


## acptulsa

> The translations have flaws, not the word of God, by which I mean the original Greek manuscripts.





> Ok, then what is your basis for saying the Bible has "contradictions"?


Another fallacy.  Unless you actually think everyone reading this has the Dead Sea Scrolls on their bookshelves, as opposed to the NIV, KJV or whatever.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The first fallacy was accusing me of a fallacy I never resorted to.  The second was trying to drag a statement I had made earlier on another subject into it as though it were relevant.  The third was accusing me of using a metaphor, because if I did not, then the statement is fallacious.


If you didn't resort to the fallacy of induction, then explain how.  Don't just give me some other examples of things I'm not supposed to think are fallacious.  Explain how what you said was not the fallacy of induction.  As for the second one, it was on the same topic in a different thread, but okay, I'll grant you that if you really don't want me to use it.  You kind of have to say that, though, instead of just silently marking up fallacies and then refusing to debate me once you have enough.  If that's what you're doing, then you don't want a discussion because discussions involve communication and trying to find common ground from which we can work.  As for the metaphor, I simply had no idea what you were talking about because you didn't tell me.  Simple as that.  If you want to avoid confusion, then I suggest you explain yourself.  You never explained how droughts and dollars were connected to the argument at hand, so I'm not obligated not to think it wasn't a metaphor.  In any case, accusing you of using a metaphor is still not a logical fallacy.




> And I'm sure you would happily tell yourself it was a victory if you drove everyone out of this thread who tried to keep you honest.  I'm sure you could convince yourself that by being stubborn you convinced everyone that three years of drought is the same as seven years of drought.  Which certainly doesn't speak well of your humanity, considering how many millions more are likely to die in a seven year drought...


I'm just trying to have a logical conversation and you're refusing to communicate the correct understanding of what you're saying.  Understanding is a two-way street.  

Do you care, now, to explain what the heck your seven years of drought has to do with whether conceptual ideas require a mind?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Which original Greek manuscripts?  Are you talking about the Septuagint?


I'm not talking about any particular one.  What are you talking about?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Another fallacy.  Unless you actually think everyone reading this has the Dead Sea Scrolls on their bookshelves, as opposed to the NIV, KJV or whatever.


Ever heard of the "fallacy fallacy"?

Everyone reading this has access to the original Greek.  Even if they didn't, what would that prove?

If you keep making these blanket statements without explaining yourself, then you're "beneath me."

----------


## Terry1

> I'm not talking about any particular one.  What are you talking about?


You said "the Greek manuscripts"--which collection of manuscripts are you referring to?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> This too dificult for you?
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...62.p4i_DRvtCbA


That's not evidence.  That's a Google search.  I want YOU to present YOUR evidence.  I'm not going to have a discussion with a Google search results page.

Is it that hard for you to put forward your best evidence?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You said "the Greek manuscripts"--which collection of manuscripts are you referring to?


I'm referring to all of the original manuscripts that make up the Bible with the words in their original language.

----------


## Terry1

> I'm referring to all of the original manuscripts that make up the Bible with the words in their original language.


And you believe those are 100 percent accurate without error?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> And you believe those are 100 percent accurate?


Yes.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Ok, then what is your basis for saying the Bible has "contradictions"?


Same events, instances, persons, etc., different answers, descriptions explanations at different times in different places. 

The wrong ones are errors and/or lies, mistranslations, etc. and either way definitely contradictions. 

You'd think that after 2,000 years of working on it, the churches would be able to get their stories straight and in sync. Or maybe it really just doesn't matter that much, as long as the money keeps rolling in.

BTW, why does God ever need money?

----------


## Terry1

> Yes.


Then why can't we say the same thing about any Bible being that they're all subject to mankind's interpretation?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Same events, instances, persons, etc., different answers, descriptions explanations at different times in different places. 
> 
> The wrong ones are errors and/or lies, mistranslations, etc. and either way definitely contradictions. 
> 
> You'd think that after 2,000 years of working on it, the churches would be able to get their stories straight and in sync. Or maybe it really just doesn't matter that much, as long as the money keeps rolling in.


You still have yet to provide an example of one of these supposed contradictions with an explanation of why it's a contradiction.  As I've said before, you can't just list a bunch of things that appear to say different things without referring to the context.  So go ahead, put your best foot forward.  




> BTW, why does God ever need money?


He doesn't.  If you want to argue with the people that ask for it, then I'm with you.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> You guys are jukin' for another rebukin'.
> 
> Don't make me do it, because I will.


 Go for it.  Stir the pot.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Then why can't we say the same thing about any Bible being that they're all subject to mankind's interpretation?


Because words have meaning.  If you really think there is no way to find the truth, then how can historians do it with other old documents that give accounts of, say, the fall of Rome?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> You still have yet to provide an example of one of these supposed contradictions with an explanation of why it's a contradiction. As I've said before, you can't just list a bunch of things that appear to say different things without referring to the context. So go ahead, put your best foot forward. 
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't. If you want to argue with the people that ask for it, then I'm with you.


  I never agreed with any of your crap requests, and I won't because putting it very kindly they're just silly.

Read the Google links or not, I really don't give a crap.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I never agreed with any of your crap requests, and I won't because putting it very kindly they're just silly.
> 
> Read the Google links or not, I really don't give a crap.


It's silly to ask for evidence when you claim there are contradictions?

OK, then suit yourself.  Your claims are invalid until you do.

If I gave you a Google search result of all the pages that answer these supposed contradictions, would you read it?

----------


## wizardwatson

> One must not think slightingly of the paradoxicalfor the paradox is the source of the thinkers passion, and the thinker without a paradox is like a lover without feeling: a paltry mediocrity.
> 
> ― Søren Kierkegaard


If the bible didn't contradict itself, I would question whether there was anything in there worth believing.

----------


## acptulsa

So, we're in a thread where the OP states, in part...




> God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years of famine?
> (a) Seven (2 Samuel 24:13)
> (b) Three (I Chronicles 21:12)


...and you beg for one verse you can call in a priest and perform an Exegism on, and I say three does not equal seven, and you accuse me of fallacies, quote previous statements completely out of context, do everything you can to change the subject, then post a lengthy treatise on how you're trying to figure out what people are saying to you but everyone on earth is obtuse but you.

There's not a man, woman or child over five on earth stupid enough to buy all that.

----------


## Terry1

> Because words have meaning.  If you really think there is no way to find the truth, then how can historians do it with other old documents that give accounts of, say, the fall of Rome?


Raw knowledge absent the Spirit of the Lord won't get anyone closer to the spiritual revelation of the word of God.  Gnostics tried that too.  God knows who's seeking with a true sincere heart--only He has the spiritual keys and knows who He wants to give them to open up and unlock the mysteries of His word.  God told us that He did this for a good reason.

Whether or not a translation is in Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew--it's all subject to mankind's flawed corrupt carnal nature of interpretations.  The only way to understand the word of God no matter what Bible one is using is to seek it in the Spirit of the Lord.  That's the only way the meanings come to light of understanding.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Raw knowledge absent the Spirit of the Lord won't get anyone closer to the spiritual revelation of the word of God.  Gnostics tried that too.  God knows who's seeking with a true sincere heart--only He has the spiritual keys and knows who He wants to give them to open up and unlock the mysteries of His word.  God told us that He did this for a good reason.
> 
> Whether or not a translation is in Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew--it's all subject to mankind's flawed corrupt carnal nature of interpretations.  The only way to understand the word of God no matter what Bible one is using is to seek it in the Spirit of the Lord.  That's the only way the meanings come to light of understanding.


Hence, the apparent contradictions to the uninitiated.  

Of course, pointing out contradictions doesn't mean you're uninitiated.  It just means you're pointing them out.

Contradictions scare away the secular folks and the false christians deny them.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> If the bible didn't contradict itself, I would question whether there was anything in there worth believing.


Interesting.  Why do you think that?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Raw knowledge absent the Spirit of the Lord won't get anyone closer to the spiritual revelation of the word of God.  Gnostics tried that too.  God knows who's seeking with a true sincere heart--only He has the spiritual keys and knows who He wants to give them to open up and unlock the mysteries of His word.  God told us that He did this for a good reason.
> 
> Whether or not a translation is in Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew--it's all subject to mankind's flawed corrupt carnal nature of interpretations.  The only way to understand the word of God no matter what Bible one is using is to seek it in the Spirit of the Lord.  That's the only way the meanings come to light of understanding.


Ok, but that doesn't mean that God wasn't competent enough to say what He meant.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> So, we're in a thread where the OP states, in part...
> 
> 
> 
> ...and you beg for one verse you can call in a priest and perform an Exegism on, and I say three does not equal seven, and you accuse me of fallacies, quote previous statements completely out of context, do everything you can to change the subject, then post a lengthy treatise on how you're trying to figure out what people are saying to you but everyone on earth is obtuse but you.
> 
> There's not a man, woman or child over five on earth stupid enough to buy all that.


I've stated repeatedly that I would give a response to one (1) passage if you can just choose one that you think is your best example.  Is that the one you want to go with?  I still think you should explain why you think it's a contradiction even in the correct context, but I'll let that slide if you really want to understand what you're doing wrong.

I'm here to help people who are sincere, but I'll indulge your request nonetheless so that people can see that your interpretation of these supposed contradictions aren't necessarily what you think they are.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

One solution to the "Three years of famine or seven" dilemma:




> Clearly, Israel had already experienced three years of famine before David numbered the people of Israel and Judah—for reasons unrelated to the situation in question. 2 Samuel 24:1–7 record the initiation of the census, but we find in verse 8 that “when they had gone through all the land, they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days.”
> 
> So according to the text, numbering the people was nearly a year-long process, and there is no clear indication that God had suspended the initial three-year famine prior to the events in chapter 24. Now if God had combined three additional years of famine (1 Chronicles 21:12) with the three years of initial famine, and a possible intervening year while the census was conducted, the resulting overall famine would have totaled about seven years (2 Samuel 24:13).
> 
> CONCLUSION
> 
> The important thing to realize is that regardless of which solution we choose, the result is the same. The accusation of contradiction evaporates—all without declaring the text in error. In conclusion, these Scriptures not only are compatible, but also work together to provide additional details on this particular event.


https://answersingenesis.org/contrad...r-seven-years/

So now that I have demonstrated that your method for finding contradictions in the Bible is in error, it logically follows that you don't know if ANY of the supposed contradictions cited in the OP are actually contradictions.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Hence, the apparent contradictions to the uninitiated.  
> 
> Of course, pointing out contradictions doesn't mean you're uninitiated.  It just means you're pointing them out.
> 
> Contradictions scare away the secular folks and the false christians deny them.


If I can explain how they don't necessarily contradict each other, then does that make me a "false Christian"?

----------


## acptulsa

> One solution to the "Three years of famine or seven" dilemma:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				Now *if* God had combined three additional years of famine (1 Chronicles 21:12) with the three years of initial famine, and a *possible* intervening year while the census was conducted, the resulting overall famine would have totaled *about* seven years (2 Samuel 24:13).
> 			
> ...


All I see is why you were casting aspersions, making false accusations, and trying desperately to change the subject.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> All I see is why you were casting aspersions, making false accusations, and trying desperately to change the subject.


So you're saying you don't accept that explanation?  Care to explain why?

All I had to do for Scriptural inerrancy to remain intact was show that they don't necessarily contradict each other, and I showed that.  If you want to believe that they do, then you're free to do that, but I've already shown that it doesn't have to be interpreted as a contradiction.  If you want to argue that it's still a contradiction, then you have to prove it.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> It's silly to ask for evidence when you claim there are contradictions?
> 
> OK, then suit yourself. Your claims are invalid until you do.
> 
> If I gave you a Google search result of all the pages that answer these supposed contradictions, would you read it?


Perhaps.

Put up or shut up.

----------


## Terry1

> If I can explain how they don't necessarily contradict each other, then does that make me a "false Christian"?


No--it denotes that you're less informed than some.

----------


## acptulsa

> So you're saying you don't accept that explanation?  Care to explain why?


Why do you insist on being spoon fed every obvious thing?  Is it that you're in such a hurry to post that you can't be bothered to read or understand?

You offer this as proof there's no contradiction and I bolded three words that emphasize this is _proof_ of nothing.  Reasonable doubt?  Maybe.  Proof?   Hardly.

All you've proven is your double standard leans rather remarkably in your favor.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Perhaps.
> 
> Put up or shut up.


Ok, here you go:

https://www.google.com/search?safe=o....0.5DOjO4EZV_s

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No--it denotes that you're less informed than some.


I'm less informed because I can offer an explanation?  I don't follow.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Why do you insist on being spoon fed every obvious thing?  Is it that you're in such a hurry to post that you can't be bothered to read or understand?
> 
> You offer this as proof there's no contradiction and I bolded three words that emphasize this is _proof_ of nothing.  Reasonable doubt?  Maybe.  Proof?   Hardly.


I don't need to prove to you that it's not a contradiction.  You need to prove that it is.  All I had to do was offer a way that it can be interpreted not to be a contradiction in order to invalidate your claim that it is.

----------


## Terry1

> I'm less informed because I can offer an explanation?  I don't follow.


If you believe that there's any "inerrant" Bible-translation or manuscript on this earth--you'd be incorrect IMO.  There is no such thing that exists.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> In conclusion, these Scriptures not only are compatible, but also work together to provide additional details on this particular event.


This is what I meant by the infrastructure of the Bible. Well...mostly what I meant, I should say. That's what I'm interested in. That sure would make for a great thread from a purely educational perspective if it could be kept civil. I suppose that we could find instances where supposed contradictions occur but actually come together over the span of hundreds of years or more. Is an interesting book, for sure.

----------


## wizardwatson

> If I can explain how they don't necessarily contradict each other, then does that make me a "false Christian"?


If you are trying to figure out if you're a false Christian or not, you're probably doing ok.

----------


## Terry1

> This is what I meant by the infrastructure of the Bible. Well...mostly what I meant, I should say. That's what I'm interested in. That sure would make for a great thread from a purely educational perspective if it could be kept civil. I suppose that we could find instances where supposed contradictions occur but actually come together over the span of hundreds of years or more. Is an interesting book, for sure.


I usually quote from the King James because it's more accurate than some--but even in the King James version I have found instances where they have used one small preposition that changed the entire context of scripture from what it should be after cross referencing that with type and shadows in the OT via the Septuagint and other sources.  

Meanings can be ferretted out and found if it's done with a thorough study, cross-reference and via the Holy Spirit's guidance.  I have the Logos digital scholars pack library--an excellent tool that I've been adding to for years now.

----------


## acptulsa

> I don't need to prove to you that it's not a contradiction.  You need to prove that it is.  All I had to do was offer a way that it can be interpreted not to be a contradiction in order to invalidate your claim that it is.


So, that's how you wish to interpret it, is it?

Fine.  Prove there had been three years' of drought at the time of that battle.  Because I don't see it in IISamuel 23 or 24.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> If you believe that there's any "inerrant" Bible-translation or manuscript on this earth--you'd be incorrect IMO.  There is no such thing that exists.


I would be incorrect *in your opinion?*  Am I incorrect or not?  Last time I checked, we have the original words that were written in the original language.  Every translation can be compared directly to that, so if you think there's no such thing as an inerrant manuscript, then prove it.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> This is what I meant by the infrastructure of the Bible. Well...mostly what I meant, I should say. That's what I'm interested in. That sure would make for a great thread from a purely educational perspective if it could be kept civil. I suppose that we could find instances where supposed contradictions occur but actually come together over the span of hundreds of years or more. Is an interesting book, for sure.

----------


## Terry1

> I would be incorrect *in your opinion?*  Am I incorrect or not?  Last time I checked, we have the original words that were written in the original language.  Every translation can be compared directly to that, so if you think there's no such thing as an inerrant manuscript, then prove it.


Lol--that would be the same as asking me to prove to you that the Holy Spirit exists and intercedes on behalf of mankind's inability to see clearly what God is saying.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> So, that's how you wish to interpret it, is it?
> 
> Fine.  Prove there had been three years' of drought at the time of that battle.  Because I don't see it in IISamuel 23 or 24.


Easy.  Two verses earlier:




> Now *there was a famine in the days of David for three years, year after year*; and David inquired of the Lord. And the Lord answered, “It is because of Saul and his bloodthirsty house, because he killed the Gibeonites.” (2 Samuel 21:1)

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Lol--that would be the same as asking me to prove to you that the Holy Spirit exists and intercedes on behalf of mankind's inability to see clearly what God is saying.


No, it wouldn't.  I don't see any reason to think that the original manuscripts haven't been copied reliably, so if you they haven't, then provide evidence for it.  You can use expert historians and linguists if you like.

----------


## Terry1

> No, it wouldn't.  I don't see any reason to think that the original manuscripts haven't been copied reliably, so if you they haven't, then provide evidence for it.  You can use expert historians and linguists if you like.


Let me ask you this then--why would you believe your interpretation of any manuscript to be any more correct than any one else's for that matter?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Let me ask you this then--why would you believe your interpretation of any manuscript to be any more correct than any one else's for that matter?


I'm not saying that.  I'm just saying there's no reason to assume that the Bible is in error.  It has nothing to do with what I think it means.  On a purely factual basis, there's no reason to think there are any contradictions.

As far as why I interpret it a certain way, that's a completely different topic, but it has to do with proper exegesis of the text.

----------


## acptulsa

> Easy.  Two verses earlier:


That would be two _chapters_ earlier, and that drought had been broken.




> And Rizpah the daughter of Aiah took sackcloth, and spread it for her upon the rock, from the beginning of harvest until water dropped upon them out of heaven, and suffered neither the birds of the air to rest on them by day, nor the beasts of the field by night.


It's only easy if you overlook or excuse away any inconvenient facts that might come along...

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> That would be two _chapters_ earlier, and that drought had been broken.
> 
> 
> 
> It's only easy if you overlook or excuse away any inconvenient facts that might come along...


Right, my bad.  Two chapters earlier.  The drought had been broken and there was an intervening year for the census.  Whether or not it had been broken, the years still add up to 7.  No contradiction.

----------


## Terry1

> I'm not saying that.  I'm just saying there's no reason to assume that the Bible is in error.  It has nothing to do with what I think it means.  On a purely factual basis, there's no reason to think there are any contradictions.
> 
> As far as why I interpret it a certain way, that's a completely different topic, but it has to do with proper exegesis of the text.


Okay then--how can you prove that by your interpretation there are no errors in the written word.  Can you prove that and how then.

----------


## acptulsa

> Right, my bad.  Two chapters earlier.  The drought had been broken and there was an intervening year for the census.  Whether or not it had been broken, the years still add up to 7.  No contradiction.


Ah, but there is.  Two three year droughts with a break in between is not a seven year drought.

If you don't believe me, ask a farmer.

You can't even introduce _reasonable doubt_ about the first contradiction I picked _completely at random._

And you're declaring victory.  Geez.  By your standards, there's no such thing as a lie...

----------


## erowe1

> Cause more than obviously, it ain't


Based on what?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Okay then--how can you prove that by your interpretation there are no errors in the written word.  Can you prove that and how then.


I can't prove it beyond all doubt.  There are many experts who praise the authenticity of the Bible's manuscripts, but I see no reason to assume they're in error.  If you want to believe they are despite that, then you're free to do so.  I'm just saying it's not necessary to believe that.

----------


## Terry1

> I'm not saying that.  I'm just saying there's no reason to assume that the Bible is in error.  It has nothing to do with what I think it means.  On a purely factual basis, there's no reason to think there are any contradictions.
> 
> As far as why I interpret it a certain way, that's a completely different topic, but it has to do with proper exegesis of the text.


I see it as that you're attempting to prove that the written word is inerrant by and through your own interpretation of only the "Greek manuscripts"--which could all be interpreted differently by someone else to one degree or another depending on what they see as truth.  

There's something called "blessed assurance"---that is assumed based upon 1 John 3:19-24.  It's something that the Holy Spirit gives a believer that is his or hers alone and a spiritual revelation of understanding which is based upon the knowledge of God's work in our individual lives.  What may be truth to you--someone else will see in somewhat a different light.  This doesn't mean that they're not a believer--it simply means that God is doing different things in their lives and leading them in a different direction in His own time for them.  

There is no perfect inerrant Bible-manuscript or written word that exists--it's all relative to whatever God wants to reveal to that person for whatever reason at that time in their lives.  Only the Holy Spirit will reveal the mysteries of His word and only grants that to the true and sincere seekers.  What God has given you--may not be what He's shown someone else and for His own good reasons.

----------


## erowe1

> So, we're in a thread where the OP states, in part...
> 
> 
> 
> ...and you beg for one verse you can call in a priest and perform an Exegism on, and I say three does not equal seven, and you accuse me of fallacies, quote previous statements completely out of context, do everything you can to change the subject, then post a lengthy treatise on how you're trying to figure out what people are saying to you but everyone on earth is obtuse but you.
> 
> There's not a man, woman or child over five on earth stupid enough to buy all that.


There's a footnote right in the first Bible I grabbed to check 1 Chronicles 21:12 that says "or seven years." This is a humble old New King James Version like any other normal person might grab on their shelf. No fancy Dead Sea Scrolls or anything.

So there's that.

Like Paul said, before you say those verses contradict each other according to what they say in the original Hebrew, first you have to establish what that original Hebrew text is--whether the one in 1 Chronicles really does say three years, or it says seven years, just like the verse in 2 Samuel.

And even then, suppose it does say three years. That doesn't mean there's a contradiction. God could have said both of those things. In either case, it was a threat that God didn't perform. It was God saying something he might have done, but didn't do.

So one book says that God didn't give a 7-year drought. The other says he didn't give a 3-year drought. It doesn't take any word games to see that both can be true.

----------


## PierzStyx

So? The Bible isn't a perfect book. One of my favorite contradictions is from Exodus 33:

V. 11 "And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle."

and then just a few verses later, but in the same interview

v.20 "And he [God] said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live."

Nothing that has passed through thousands of years of mortal hands could be expected to be a perfect thing. This is why I'm thankful for modern prophets and apostles who, like the ancients of old, have power and authority to speak in the name of God, interpret scripture, and receive modern revelation for modern needs.

----------


## Terry1

> So? The Bible isn't a perfect book. Nothing that has passed through thousands of years of mortal hands could be expected to be a perfect thing. This is why I'm thankful for modern prophets and apostles who, like the ancients of old, have power and authority to speak in the name of God, interpret scripture, and receive modern revelation for modern needs.


Even that needs to be questioned and examined because a lot of people want to call themselves "prophets" these days and are teaching false prophecies.  Better to trust in the Lord via the Holy Spirit.  That way you get it straight from the horse mouth.  Bible says there will be tons of false prophets popping up in the last days.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Ah, but there is.  Two three year droughts with a break in between is not a seven year drought.
> 
> If you don't believe me, ask a farmer.
> 
> You can't even introduce _reasonable doubt_ about the first contradiction I picked _completely at random._
> 
> And you're declaring victory.  Geez.  By your standards, there's no such thing as a lie...


There's no clear indication that God had suspended the famine.  If He had, then you would think somebody would have wrote about it.  Regardless, though, that's not the only option.  It's possible the prophet Gad came to David twice, offering a different option each time.  This is supported by the fact that the wording is different:




> Second Samuel 24:13 is a question: “Shall seven years of famine come to you in your land?” First Chronicles 21:12 is a command with alternatives: “Choose for yourself, either three years of famine....” Why would God make such a change in the alternatives He presented David? Perhaps because of David’s confession of sin, contrite heart, and plea for mercy.


https://www.apologeticspress.org/apc...6&article=1267

Furthermore, there is a third option involving a very small scribal error in which an ancient scribe mistook the Hebrew numeral letters, since they are quite similar.  It does not, however, mean that we must assume the original writers were in error and couldn't get their story straight.  It certainly makes more sense to try to reconcile this small difference rather than assume it is irreconcilable.  The writings of Josephus or Tacitus contain similar small scribal errors (not errors in the original text, mind you), but we don't assume they didn't know what they were talking about because of it.  If we applied the same amount of rigor to every ancient text as you do to the Bible, then we would have to throw out all the written accounts of ancient history.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I see it as that you're attempting to prove that the written word is inerrant by and through your own interpretation of only the "Greek manuscripts"--which could all be interpreted differently by someone else to one degree or another depending on what they see as truth.  
> 
> There's something called "blessed assurance"---that is assumed based upon 1 John 3:19-24.  It's something that the Holy Spirit gives a believer that is his or hers alone and a spiritual revelation of understanding which is based upon the knowledge of God's work in our individual lives.  What may be truth to you--someone else will see in somewhat a different light.  This doesn't mean that they're not a believer--it simply means that God is doing different things in their lives and leading them in a different direction in His own time for them.  
> 
> There is no perfect inerrant Bible-manuscript or written word that exists--it's all relative to whatever God wants to reveal to that person for whatever reason at that time in their lives.  Only the Holy Spirit will reveal the mysteries of His word and only grants that to the true and sincere seekers.  What God has given you--may not be what He's shown someone else and for His own good reasons.


I'm not talking about interpretations.  I realize mine is not the only good interpretation.  There are several good interpretations that don't contradict anything else in the text, but on a purely factual basis, there's no reason to believe that the original writers had any factual errors in their accounts.

Of course I believe my non-factual interpretations are correct, but that's off-topic.

----------


## acptulsa

> So one book says that God didn't give a 7-year drought. The other says he didn't give a 3-year drought. It doesn't take any word games to see that both can be true.


It isn't about whether the threat was carried out, it's about what threat was made.  And you know it.




> If we applied the same amount of rigor to every ancient text as you do to the Bible, then we would have to throw out all the written accounts of ancient history.


We don't have to throw out anything because there are contradictions within it.

You're the one tying yourself in knots because you were raised on dogma that says the Bible must not contain contradictions.

I'm just grateful that my own faith in God isn't contingent upon anything that fragile, meaningless and just generally goofy.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> It isn't about whether the threat was carried out, it's about what threat was made.  And you know it.
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have to throw out anything because there are contradictions within it.
> 
> You're the one tying yourself in knots because you were raised on dogma that says the Bible must not contain contradictions.


I'm not tying myself in knots.  I answered you and you did not respond.  There's no clear indication that the famine was suspended.

Also, I never said there are no scribal errors in the text.  I said the *original* text contains no contradictions, and so far, I see no reason to believe that there are any.  You certainly haven't provided a reason why I should believe that.  If you don't think this is a problem for the reliability of the original texts of the Bible just as you apparently don't think it was a problem for the reliability of Josephus, then why do you bring it up?

----------


## acptulsa

> I'm not tying myself in knots.  I answered you and you did not respond.


Bull$#@!.




> There's no clear indication that the famine was suspended.


The lady played human scarecrow until water fell from heaven, David heard what she did--not what she was doing, but what she had done--long before the battle, and if this isn't proof enough you don't believe anything the Bible says.




> Also, I never said there are no scribal errors in the text.  I said the *original* text contains no contradictions, and so far, I see no reason to believe that there are any.  You certainly haven't provided a reason why I should believe that.  If you don't think this is a problem for the reliability of the original texts of the Bible just as you apparently don't think it was a problem for the reliability of Josephus, then why do you bring it up?


I didn't start this thread.  Go look at the OP.  Is that post mine?

You lied about me posting fallacies, you lied about me saying we have to throw out all ancient texts at the first sign of a contradiction, and you're lying now about me failing to respond.

I think everyone has learned to take what you say about me with a grain--or a pinch, or a pound--of salt.  Have fun talking to yourself.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Bull$#@!.


Remember, all I have to do is provide one possible instance in which it doesn't contradict itself and your claim that there are contradictions in the Bible is without merit.  




> The lady played human scarecrow until water fell from heaven, David heard what she did--not what she was doing, but what she had done--long before the battle, and if this isn't proof enough you don't believe anything the Bible says.


"Famine" doesn't mean the same thing as "drought."




> I didn't start this thread.  Go look at the OP.  Is that post mine?


I never said you did, but you're agreeing with him, aren't you?  




> You lied about me posting fallacies, you lied about me saying we have to throw out all ancient texts at the first sign of a contradiction, and you're lying now about me failing to respond.


I did not lie.  If you want to say I lied, you have to prove that my intent was to deceive.  You did use the fallacy of induction when you said that, because logic exists with or without our minds, therefore it exists with or without any mind at all.  You are taking a truth about a particular instance and using it to make a general conclusion.  That is the fallacy of induction.  

When I see people saying things I didn't say, I don't assume they are lying.  I correct them and if they refuse to be corrected, then I end the debate.  You never even tried to correct me before you started flinging accusations of me being a liar, which would make you, at the very least, intellectually dishonest.  




> I think everyone has learned to take what you say about me with a grain--or a pinch, or a pound--of salt.  Have fun talking to yourself.


On the contrary, I think everyone has learned that you don't like reasoned discussions.  You do, however, like to mislead people by making vague statements and then accusing them of lying when they take your vague statement the wrong way.  That tactic isn't going to work on me.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> That's not evidence. That's a Google search. I want YOU to present YOUR evidence. I'm not going to have a discussion with a Google search results page.
> 
> Is it that hard for you to put forward your best evidence?


Sorry, you are no where near worth the necessary time nor effort. You just get what you get. Leave it or leave it.

Besides requesting evidence of the obvious is both stupid and lazy.  You want evidence, then reasearch it yourself if you really care enough, which you don't.

----------


## erowe1

> It isn't about whether the threat was carried out, it's about what threat was made.  And you know it.


But when you put it that way, there's no contradiction. Since neither threat was carried out, both threats could have been made.

And you know it.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Sorry, you are no where near worth the necessary time nor effort. You just get what you get. Leave it or leave it.
> 
> Besides requesting evidence of the obvious is both stupid and lazy.  You want evidence, then reasearch it yourself if you really care enough, which you don't.


So you start a thread, but you're not willing to argue the point you're apparently trying to make?  If you just want to trade Google results pages, that's fine.  You gave me yours and I gave you mine.  If that's your whole point in creating this thread, then well, that's just dandy.  

And as for the point being "obvious", I think the last few pages of discussion over Gad the prophet's prophecy kind of disproves that.  It's not obvious at all.

And I don't get why you're trying to condescend me by saying I'm "not worth" the time or effort.  What have I ever done to you?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Ok, here you go:
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?safe=o....0.5DOjO4EZV_s


You missed a few hundred.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You missed a few hundred.


A few hundred what?  What in the heck are you talking about?

I gave the same thing you did.  Did yours "miss a few hundred" as well?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Actually you're very predictable.


  What will I say a week from tomorrow.

----------


## CPUd

I didn't make this one, but wow:
http://bibviz.com/

----------


## Suzanimal

> What will I say a week from tomorrow.


http://lmgtfy.com/?q=What+will+Ronin...omorrow%3F&l=1

----------


## Ronin Truth

> A few hundred what? What in the heck are you talking about?
> 
> I gave the same thing you did. Did yours "miss a few hundred" as well?


Undoubtedly.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=What+will+Ronin...omorrow%3F&l=1


Well, I certainly won't now.

----------


## Ronin Truth

..

----------


## Kevin007

there are no contradictions in the bible Ronin, none.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> there are no contradictions in the bible Ronin, none.


Jesus descended from which son of David?

----------


## Kevin007

you are starting from an incorrect premise in your OP.

----------


## Kevin007

http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseact...uke-323-38.htm

----------


## erowe1

> What will I say a week from tomorrow.


Nothing. You'll copy and paste something someone else said.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseact...uke-323-38.htm


+1

So, that's 2 supposed contradictions that turn out not to really be contradictions.  Shall we keep going?

----------


## otherone

> there are no contradictions in the bible Ronin, none.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> you are starting from an incorrect premise in your OP.


Which incorrect premise is that?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Nothing. You'll copy and paste something someone else said.


Sorry, I just keep on finding stuff much more interesting than me.  And you too, as it turns out.

We shall see.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> +1
> 
> So, that's 2 supposed contradictions that turn out not to really be contradictions. Shall we keep going?


I'd really much rather accept an invitation from Kevin to continue.

----------


## Todd

Who thinks it's cool to start divisive threads in a "Peace through Religion" Thread?  

Kinda defeats the purpose don'tcha think?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Who thinks it's cool to start divisive threads in a "Peace through Religion" Thread? 
> 
> Kinda defeats the purpose don'tcha think?


I do. 

Actually no, what's the purpose?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> *Bible Contradictions*
> 
> PAUL SAID, "God is not the author of confusion," (I Corinthians 14:33), yet never has a book produced more confusion than the bible! There are hundreds of denominations and sects, all using the "inspired Scriptures" to prove their conflicting doctrines. 
> 
> Why do trained theologians differ? Why do educated translators disagree over Greek and Hebrew meanings? Why all the confusion? Shouldn't a document that was "divinely inspired" by an omniscient and omnipotent deity be as clear as possible?
> 
> "If the trumpet give an uncertain sound," Paul wrote in I Corinthians 14:8, "who shall prepare himself to the battle? So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air." Exactly! Paul should have practiced what he preached. For almost two millennia, the bible has been producing a most "uncertain sound."
> 
> The problem is not with human limitations, as some claim. The problem is the bible itself. People who are free of theological bias notice that the bible contains hundreds of discrepancies. Should it surprise us when such a literary and moral mish-mash, taken seriously, causes so much discord? Here is a brief sampling of biblical contradictions.
> ...


http://ffrf.org/legacy/books/lfif/?t=contra

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> http://ffrf.org/legacy/books/lfif/?t=contra


Why do you insist on throwing out this laundry list of supposed contradictions?  Can't we just deal with one at a time?  We've already shown that your assessment may not even be accurate, so acting like we should just take this list as some sort of proof is very misleading and is not conducive to understanding at all.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Why do you insist on throwing out this laundry list of supposed contradictions? Can't we just deal with one at a time? We've already shown that your assessment may not even be accurate, so acting like we should just take this list as some sort of proof is very misleading and is not conducive to understanding at all.


My thread, my way.  If you want it your way, start your own thread.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> My thread, my way.  If you want it your way, start your own thread.


Oh, I'm sorry.  I must have mistaken you for someone who isn't impervious to reason.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> My thread, my way.  If you want it your way, start your own thread.


Ah, the (in)famous "Ronin Way"...how to start 10+ pages of discussion without actually discussing anything.  I move we call this art of bullshitting "Ronin Do".  Anyone care to second?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Ah, the (in)famous "Ronin Way"...how to start 10+ pages of discussion without actually discussing anything. I move we call this art of bullshitting "Ronin Do". Anyone care to second?


I'll second it.

AND feel free to start an intelligent discussion. <shrug>

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Oh, I'm sorry. I must have mistaken you for someone who isn't impervious to reason.


As Jesus would say, you are forgiven.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> *Contradictions in the Bible 
> 
> *Curious to know why the Bible contains thousands of contradictions and what they tell us about the Bible's compositional history, authors, audiences, and the historical circumstances that produced it?
> 
> _I am a biblical scholar and historian of the early Christian period. But over the past 5 years I have become increasingly interested in the compositional history of the Hebrew Bible, especially the Pentateuch. In January 2013 I started posting 1 contradiction a day, with the aim of working through the entire Bible. Although I have lost the habit of posting a contradiction a day, to date I have merely gone through 4 books of the Bible and am presently posting contradictions for the book of Numbers._ _
> 
> Despite its provocative and even misleading title, “Contradictions in the Bible” is a website devoted to bringing biblical scholarship to the public, what experts in the field now know about the Bible’s various textual traditions, the historical and literary contexts that produced these texts, how they came to be assembled together, and even the competing aims and agendas of their diverse authors. Thus, this website’s primary aim is to reclaim the topic of Bible Contradictions for its proper field of study—biblical scholarship._ _
> 
> Yet ironically, and unfortunately, Contradictions in the Bible is a topic generally and almost exclusively treated in the public arena by two opposing camps, both of whom are non-experts in the field: Atheists and Christian apologists. While atheists are generally correct in claiming that the Bible does in fact contain numerous contradictions, from minute differences in narrative details to competing theological and ideological agendas, they often present these contradictions in a shallow and belittling manner—an empty list devoid of substance with little to no real knowledge of the texts themselves, their authors, audiences, and the historical circumstances that produced them. The internet is full of such lists. Although often impressionable, these lists do nothing to further a conversation about the Bible’s texts, nor do they help remedy the increasingly systemic problem of biblical illiteracy currently sweeping across our country.__
> ...


http://contradictionsinthebible.com/

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> As Jesus would say, you are forgiven.


Well, I'll be.  You really don't need any help destroying your credibility, do you?

----------


## jmdrake

> I didn't know that TER was Theocrat. When did that happen?
> 
> He was asking questions, so I was asking questions.


LOL.  Another contradiction.    Anyway it's interesting and a bit sad that Theocrat decided to derail your topic instead of addressing it.  Without going through all 101 (that's a lot) here are a few things to point out.

1) There can be multiple causes to the same event.  Take God/Satan inducing David to number the people.  Some would say "But of course.  God made Satan make David number the people."  I think that's the SF/FF/PCWV position.  Other's would say God allowed Satan to do that for some unspecified reason.  The Bible says "God hardened Pharoah's heart" but it also said he hardened his own heart.

2) Some of the number dependencies are trivial.  Were there really a million men at the million man march or were there merely 900+ thousand?

3) Thought inspiration versus word inspiration.  The ideas in the Bible can be inspired without it being a word for word transcription.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> LOL.  Another contradiction.    Anyway it's interesting and a bit sad that Theocrat decided to derail your topic instead of addressing it.  Without going through all 101 (that's a lot) here are a few things to point out.
> 
> 1) There can be multiple causes to the same event.  Take God/Satan inducing David to number the people.  Some would say "But of course.  God made Satan make David number the people."  I think that's the SF/FF/PCWV position.  Other's would say God allowed Satan to do that for some unspecified reason.  The Bible says "God hardened Pharoah's heart" but it also said he hardened his own heart.
> 
> 2) Some of the number dependencies are trivial.  Were there really a million men at the million man march or were there merely 900+ thousand?
> 
> 3) Thought inspiration versus word inspiration.  The ideas in the Bible can be inspired without it being a word for word transcription.


I'd say the important point here is that small scribal errors like 3 versus 7 are really quite meaningless and there's no indication that such a mistake existed in the original text.  If anything, these small discrepancies are a testament to how well attested the manuscripts are.  What such things really indicate is that no single authority has ever had complete control over the entire text of the Bible, proof that it has never been corrupted by any particular sect or creed.  These supposed contradictions all have answers, and even skeptical biblical scholars say that it is the most well-attested and best-kept of any of the ancient writings, including anything from ancient Rome.  

Oh, and Pharaoh was predestined to harden his heart.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Well, I'll be. You really don't need any help destroying your credibility, do you?


I certainly don't need any help from you for anything at all.  Thanks anyway.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> LOL. Another contradiction.  Anyway it's interesting and a bit sad that Theocrat decided to derail your topic instead of addressing it. Without going through all 101 (that's a lot) here are a few things to point out.
> 
> 1) There can be multiple causes to the same event. Take God/Satan inducing David to number the people. Some would say "But of course. God made Satan make David number the people." I think that's the SF/FF/PCWV position. Other's would say God allowed Satan to do that for some unspecified reason. The Bible says "God hardened Pharoah's heart" but it also said he hardened his own heart.
> 
> 2) Some of the number dependencies are trivial. Were there really a million men at the million man march or were there merely 900+ thousand?
> 
> 3) Thought inspiration versus word inspiration. The ideas in the Bible can be inspired without it being a word for word transcription.



Yeah Theocrat thought, and told Sola, that he had the handle on both this thread and me.  Now he's gone and we're still here.   LOL!

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I certainly don't need any help from you for anything at all.  Thanks anyway.


Oh, you must have misunderstood.  I never offered you any.

----------


## Crashland

I don't think it is particularly fair to just list a huge number of contradictions. It might have the effect of planting a few seeds of doubt in a believer, or re-enforcing a non-Christian's beliefs, but it isn't really a strong argument if all of the points are just listed.

I have to point out on the other side though, when these issues are explored one at a time, Christians are susceptible to afford the Bible a miles-long leash for creative exegesis to explain the apparent contradictions, while not affording other historical or religious texts the same allowance for their contradictions.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I'll second it.
> 
> AND feel free to start an intelligent discussion. <shrug>


You don't find Japanese philosophy intelligent and interesting?  Well, most philosophers in the world disagree with you-as do I.  Quite a lot of ink has been spilled on the concept of "do" ("The Way") alone.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I don't think it is particularly fair to just list a huge number of contradictions. It might have the effect of planting a few seeds of doubt in a believer, or re-enforcing a non-Christian's beliefs, but it isn't really a strong argument if all of the points are just listed.
> 
> I have to point out on the other side though, when these issues are explored one at a time, Christians are susceptible to afford the Bible a miles-long leash for creative exegesis to explain the apparent contradictions, while not affording other historical or religious texts the same allowance for their contradictions.


To your "other side" comment, other historical or religious texts don't have nearly the amount of authenticity that the Biblical texts do.  

Besides, we never just assume that ANY historical text is contradictory until proven non-contradictory.  Instead, the burden of proof is on the skeptic who wants to say that the original text was made with a built-in contradiction that sullies its authenticity.  The vast majority of these supposed contradictions can be explained very easily, and all that has to be done to avoid the contradiction is find one particular way in which it could be interpreted without a contradiction.  If we can do that, then there's absolutely no reason to think or assume that there would be one there.  If anyone wants to believe that some contradictory interpretation is the correct interpretation, then they can believe that, but there's no evidence to think it's true or that any contradictory interpretation is better than the one that's not.  

If you find a seeming contradiction in ANY historical text, it makes much more sense to try to reconcile them than to assume that the people who wrote the accounts were lying or stupid.  It takes a heavy burden of proof to say that they can't be interpreted in such a way that there's no contradiction.

----------


## acptulsa

> Well, I'll be.  You really don't need any help destroying your credibility, do you?


And you need help destroying yours?




> I'd say the important point here is that small scribal errors like 3 versus 7 are really quite meaningless...


Well, gee, that depends.  If you're whole dogma--indeed, if your ticket to heaven--depends on some statement Paul made that Jesus does not confirm, then you have to decide, and fervently cling to the notion, that the Holy Spirit oversaw every word that got into the book down to the last detail.  And that includes small scribal details.

Which is why all these people at all these websites like the one you quoted work so hard dreaming up excuses for these 'nonexistent discrepancies'.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> You don't find Japanese philosophy intelligent and interesting? Well, most philosophers in the world disagree with you-as do I. Quite a lot of ink has been spilled on the concept of "do" ("The Way") alone.


Have I just missed all of your enlightened Shinto, Zen and Taoist, etc. threads? 

I don't think so.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> And you need help destroying yours?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, gee, that depends.  If you're whole dogma--indeed, if your ticket to heaven--depends on some statement Paul made that Jesus does not confirm, then you have to decide, and fervently cling to the notion, that the Holy Spirit oversaw every word that got into the book down to the last detail.  And that includes small scribal details.
> 
> Which is why all these people at all these websites like the one you quoted work so hard dreaming up excuses for these 'nonexistent discrepancies'.


Oh, so you're back.  Care to pick up where we left off and explain how you weren't using the induction fallacy?

Anybody who wants to believe the Bible was corrupted has to cling just as fervently to the notion that the contradictions are true.  As I've said, we don't treat any historical text with the amount of rigor we do the Bible and it still comes out head and shoulders above the rest.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I don't think it is particularly fair to just list a huge number of contradictions. It might have the effect of planting a few seeds of doubt in a believer, or re-enforcing a non-Christian's beliefs, but it isn't really a strong argument if all of the points are just listed.
> 
> I have to point out on the other side though, when these issues are explored one at a time, Christians are susceptible to afford the Bible a miles-long leash for creative exegesis to explain the apparent contradictions, while not affording other historical or religious texts the same allowance for their contradictions.


Ya know, "being particularly fair" is just about #10 on my top ten agenda list.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Oh, you must have misunderstood. I never offered you any.


You asked a question and I answered it.  End of story.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> LOL. Another contradiction.  Anyway it's interesting and a bit sad that Theocrat decided to derail your topic instead of addressing it. Without going through all 101 (that's a lot) here are a few things to point out.
> 
> 1) There can be multiple causes to the same event. Take God/Satan inducing David to number the people. Some would say "But of course. God made Satan make David number the people." I think that's the SF/FF/PCWV position. Other's would say God allowed Satan to do that for some unspecified reason. The Bible says "God hardened Pharoah's heart" but it also said he hardened his own heart.
> 
> 2) Some of the number dependencies are trivial. Were there really a million men at the million man march or were there merely 900+ thousand?
> 
> 3) Thought inspiration versus word inspiration. The ideas in the Bible can be inspired without it being a word for word transcription.


Is it just the Paulinists/Christians that have such huge difficulties between the concepts of "word of" vs. "word about"?  

The differences are huge, and cause loads of misunderstandings and troubles, it seems to me.  Error on the side of caution, I'd say.

----------


## Crashland

> To your "other side" comment, other historical or religious texts don't have nearly the amount of authenticity that the Biblical texts do.
> 
> Besides, we never just assume that ANY historical text is contradictory until proven non-contradictory.  Instead, the burden of proof is on the skeptic who wants to say that the original text was made with a built-in contradiction that sullies its authenticity.  The vast majority of these supposed contradictions can be explained very easily, and all that has to be done to avoid the contradiction is find one particular way in which it could be interpreted without a contradiction.  If we can do that, then there's absolutely no reason to think or assume that there would be one there.  If anyone wants to believe that some contradictory interpretation is the correct interpretation, then they can believe that, but there's no evidence to think it's true or that any contradictory interpretation is better than the one that's not.  
> 
> If you find a seeming contradiction in ANY historical text, it makes much more sense to try to reconcile them than to assume that the people who wrote the accounts were lying or stupid.  It takes a heavy burden of proof to say that they can't be interpreted in such a way that there's no contradiction.


We have established previously that when you are invoking the Bible's  "authenticity," this does not equal accuracy or truthfulness. The Bible  is "authentic" in the same sense that the US Constitution and Les Miserables and Mein Kampf are all authentic -- this does not say anything about whether those  documents are accurate or if they have contradictions, and it should not factor into our evaluation of those potential contradictions at all.

I don't think we should assume there are or aren't contradictions. The only thing we can do is read the text itself and evaluate it. If we read the text and find that in two different places, there are two mutually exclusive answers to the same question, then that merits looking into. The burden of proof in this case is on both parties. If you claim that there are no contradictions in the Bible, then the burden of proof is on you to show that there aren't any (which is very hard because it is attempting to prove a negative. It's like a strong atheist trying to prove that there is no god.). On the other hand, if you claim that  there is a contradiction, then the burden of proof is on you to  demonstrate the contradiction in the text, which in some cases is trivially easy. Ronin provided a list of 100 or so instances of this. For most of these individual issues, it does not require very much explaining to demonstrate how they appear to contradict one another. Many of them do, however, require a great deal of explaining or creative interpretation to demonstrate how they can still be consistent.

I'm not saying that any of the apparent contradictions can't be explained away such that they could actually be consistent. I'm saying that the great lengths that Christians take to explain them away, are only allowed when applied to the Bible, and not to any other texts or collections of texts (since the Bible is, after all, a collection of texts from many different authors, times, and locations). If you were to take a Dick Cheney speech and a Ron Paul speech, and canonize them together into an "authentic" book, I am sure all of those apparent contradictions in there could be reconciled and explained away if we were to apply the same amount of creative interpretation and exegesis that Christians apply to the books in the Bible.

----------


## Crashland

> Ya know, "being particularly fair" is just about #10 on my top ten agenda list.


If you are interested in rational discourse then you should move that up a few ranks, but if you just want to take potshots then leave it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Have I just missed all of your enlightened Shinto, Zen and Taoist, etc. threads? 
> 
> I don't think so.


I didn't feel any need to do so.  So?  Are you trying to make a point here?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> We have established previously that when you are invoking the Bible's  "authenticity," this does not equal accuracy or truthfulness. The Bible  is "authentic" in the same sense that the US Constitution and Les Miserables and Mein Kampf are all authentic -- this does not say anything about whether those  documents are accurate or if they have contradictions, and it should not factor into our evaluation of those potential contradictions at all.


I never claimed that authenticity equaled accuracy or truthfulness, but at the same time, its authenticity should not be ignored because it does give us some information on how much the document has changed over time, which is to say, very little.  We can conclude from this that it has not been corrupted and that we can measure claims of contradictions according to how close it is to the original.  This may even help the people claiming contradictions, since it gets us closer to the original document, which is the one they are trying to attack.  However, as we've seen, almost all contradictions are either easily explained or probably attributable to a very small scribal error.  We would give any less authentic historical writing the same benefit of the doubt because it makes less sense to say that the authors of the manuscript were either lying or stupid than it does to say that there is some way to reconcile the two claims.  Thus, if the non-believer wants to prove that there are contradictions, he must provide airtight evidence that the document cannot be interpreted any other way.  The burden of proof rests SOLELY on the skeptic's shoulders, just as it would for skeptics of written accounts from ancient Rome. 




> I don't think we should assume there are or aren't contradictions. The only thing we can do is read the text itself and evaluate it. If we read the text and find that in two different places, there are two mutually exclusive answers to the same question, then that merits looking into. The burden of proof in this case is on both parties. If you claim that there are no contradictions in the Bible, then the burden of proof is on you to show that there aren't any (which is very hard because it is attempting to prove a negative. It's like a strong atheist trying to prove that there is no god.). On the other hand, if you claim that  there is a contradiction, then the burden of proof is on you to  demonstrate the contradiction in the text, which in some cases is trivially easy. Ronin provided a list of 100 or so instances of this. For most of these individual issues, it does not require very much explaining to demonstrate how they appear to contradict one another. Many of them do, however, require a great deal of explaining or creative interpretation to demonstrate how they can still be consistent.


False.  The burden of proof lies solely on the skeptic in this case.  To compare this to God's existence is a category error because the burden of proof shifts based on what we expect.  In the case of God's existence, we have no expectations so the burden of proof lies equally on both sides.  However, when it comes to studying ancient documents, the expectation is that the authors of the texts were sincere and had no ulterior motives.  We study every single ancient manuscript with the assumption that the authors of these historical accounts knew what they were talking about and were not attempting to deceive anyone.  We do this even with far less authentic texts that have a higher risk of being corrupted.  When we do find supposed contradictions, we don't simply assume that the apparently opposing claims have no explanation.  The appearance of a contradiction can simply be due to a lack of information or, as is often the case with the Bible, a lack of context.  It makes much more sense for historians to search for why both these apparently opposing statements were made rather than to simply assume that they indicate some sort of ulterior motives or incompetence of the authors.  So, in light of all this, the burden of proof rests solely and heavily on the Bible skeptic to prove that apparent contradictions are 1) really contradictions and 2) cannot be explained.




> I'm not saying that any of the apparent contradictions can't be explained away such that they could actually be consistent. I'm saying that the great lengths that Christians take to explain them away, are only allowed when applied to the Bible, and not to any other texts or collections of texts (since the Bible is, after all, a collection of texts from many different authors, times, and locations). If you were to take a Dick Cheney speech and a Ron Paul speech, and canonize them together into an "authentic" book, I am sure all of those apparent contradictions in there could be reconciled and explained away if we were to apply the same amount of creative interpretation and exegesis that Christians apply to the books in the Bible.


You are mistaken.  This "creative interpretation" is "allowed" WRT every historical text.  In order to substantiate the claim that there IS a contradiction, you must first eliminate all possible alternative explanations.  If ANY of those explanations is valid, then the authenticity of the text does not suffer a scratch because you don't know if your claim of a contradiction is any more realistic or better than one that doesn't require the assumption that the authors were either deceitful or incompetent.  What you are calling "creative exegesis" is really just "exegesis."  If it weren't a realistic explanation, then it wouldn't be an explanation at all and, once again, the burden of proof lies on you to prove that no possible explanation can be reasonably applied.  You continually claim that all of these explanations are just creative ways of getting around problems, but that assumes there was a problem in the first place.  What's more, you have yet to substantiate these claims that such explanations are "creative" or go beyond the boundaries of rational thinking before you can claim that such an explanation is insufficient in some way.

What I find interesting is that you seem to think making the "positive claim" as you are doing in this case, is somehow EASIER than supporting the negative claim, even though skeptics of God's existence will often claim that they don't even need to support a negative claim but rather simply evaluate the positive.  In this case, however, all of a sudden the positive claim is more believable to you even though the negative claim requires no burden of proof.  That's where you expose your ignorance, in fact.  You acknowledge the fact that we are making the negative claim and yet you will not grant us the lack of a burden of proof.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> If you are interested in rational discourse then you should move that up a few ranks, but if you just want to take potshots then leave it.


I think he's made it clear which one he wants.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Seems like you're kind of backing off a little bit on your conclusions, Paul. Well...as conclusions go, I suppose. Of course, I see a wall of words, too, so maybe I'm missing something there.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Seems like you're kind of backing off a little bit on your conclusions, Paul. Well...as conclusions go, I suppose. Of course, I see a wall of words, too, so maybe I'm missing something there.


I'm afraid I don't understand.  What conclusions did I make and how am I backing off of them?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

The simple fact is that we don't ask these questions about other historical texts.  If we find an apparent contradiction in accounts of the civil war, we assume that there is some way to explain it unless there simply is no other explanation.  Skeptics like to say this is "creative exegesis", but when it comes to any other historical text, any historian worth his salt would seek to understand why both statements were made instead of simply assuming that the author had some ulterior motive or was just incompetent and dismissing alternative explanations as "creative interpretation".  

A Bible skeptic would make a terrible historian.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I'm afraid I don't understand.  What conclusions did I make and how am I backing off of them?


Your frame. Seems like you've reframed your points a bit. Like I said, though, I'm looking at a wall of words here. I haven't read through each and every comment/thought. Seems like the discussion has gone in a bit of a different direction.  Conclusion was likely the wrong word to use there.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Your frame. Seems like you've reframed your points a bit. Like I said, though, I'm looking at a wall of words here. I haven't read through each and every comment/thought. Seems like the discussion has gone in a bit of a different direction.  Conclusion was likely the wrong word to use there.


Well, maybe you should read my comments and try to understand what I'm saying before telling me what I'm doing since you don't even seem to know what _you're_ trying to say.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Meh. Nevermind, man. Forget I said anything. Carry on...

----------


## Crashland

> I never claimed that authenticity equaled accuracy or truthfulness, but at the same time, its authenticity should not be ignored because it does give us some information on how much the document has changed over time, which is to say, very little.  We can conclude from this that it has not been corrupted and that we can measure claims of contradictions according to how close it is to the original.  This may even help the people claiming contradictions, since it gets us closer to the original document, which is the one they are trying to attack.  However, as we've seen, almost all contradictions are either easily explained or probably attributable to a very small scribal error.  We would give any less authentic historical writing the same benefit of the doubt because it makes less sense to say that the authors of the manuscript were either lying or stupid than it does to say that there is some way to reconcile the two claims.  Thus, if the non-believer wants to prove that there are contradictions, he must provide airtight evidence that the document cannot be interpreted any other way.  The burden of proof rests SOLELY on the skeptic's shoulders, just as it would for skeptics of written accounts from ancient Rome.
> 
> False.  The burden of proof lies solely on the skeptic in this case.  To compare this to God's existence is a category error because the burden of proof shifts based on what we expect.  In the case of God's existence, we have no expectations so the burden of proof lies equally on both sides.  However, when it comes to studying ancient documents, the expectation is that the authors of the texts were sincere and had no ulterior motives.  We study every single ancient manuscript with the assumption that the authors of these historical accounts knew what they were talking about and were not attempting to deceive anyone.  We do this even with far less authentic texts that have a higher risk of being corrupted.  When we do find supposed contradictions, we don't simply assume that the apparently opposing claims have no explanation.  The appearance of a contradiction can simply be due to a lack of information or, as is often the case with the Bible, a lack of context.  It makes much more sense for historians to search for why both these apparently opposing statements were made rather than to simply assume that they indicate some sort of ulterior motives or incompetence of the authors.  So, in light of all this, the burden of proof rests solely and heavily on the Bible skeptic to prove that apparent contradictions are 1) really contradictions and 2) cannot be explained.


You are severely under-representing how easy it is to explain some of  these. There are libraries full of books and a vast field of apologetics of people going at great  lengths attempting to reconcile apparent Biblical contradictions. To say  that the authors were either stupid or lying with an ulterior motive is a false dichotomy. They  could also simply be honestly mistaken through no glaring fault of  their own. To have contradictory claims is not something that should be unexpected when you compile many different texts from many different  authors into a single "authentic" narrative. If we are to find two documents from  ancient Rome, and one of them says *in the text* that Emperor X died in year Y, and  the other one says *in the text* that Emperor X died in year Z, then all we have to do  is point to the texts themselves to demonstrate a contradiction. It  does not make sense to "give them the benefit of the doubt". We are  evaluating two different texts from two different authors. Perhaps both of them were simply writing based on the oral tradition in their particular geographic location. If the claim  about the contradiction is reasonable from simply looking at the texts,  it would then be up to somebody else to demonstrate why it is actually  even more reasonable to believe that both of the texts are true.





> You are mistaken.  This "creative interpretation" is "allowed" WRT every historical text.  In order to substantiate the claim that there IS a contradiction, you must first eliminate all possible alternative explanations.  If ANY of those explanations is valid, then the authenticity of the text does not suffer a scratch because you don't know if your claim of a contradiction is any more realistic or better than one that doesn't require the assumption that the authors were either deceitful or incompetent.  What you are calling "creative exegesis" is really just "exegesis."  If it weren't a realistic explanation, then it wouldn't be an explanation at all and, once again, the burden of proof lies on you to prove that no possible explanation can be reasonably applied.  You continually claim that all of these explanations are just creative ways of getting around problems, but that assumes there was a problem in the first place.  What's more, you have yet to substantiate these claims that such explanations are "creative" or go beyond the boundaries of rational thinking before you can claim that such an explanation is insufficient in some way.


Your standard for establishing a contradiction is *way* too high. If we always had to eliminate _all_ possible alternative explanations, then nothing in the world could ever be asserted as a contradiction. For any possible contradiction, there is an infinite number of possible explanations that can be invoked. Only a subset of those possible explanations are actually reasonable, and that is the part that matters. It all boils down to the question, is it more reasonable to believe that at least one of the statements is incorrect, or is it more reasonable to believe that both of the statements are correct? I would assume that we might differ greatly on whether a particular explanation is realistic. The problem is that you are starting with the assumption that there are no contradictions, and so the most reasonable explanation is considered to be realistic even though an equivalent explanation might not be considered realistic if applied to something other than the Bible.




> What I find interesting is that you seem to think making the "positive claim" as you are doing in this case, is somehow EASIER than supporting the negative claim, even though skeptics of God's existence will often claim that they don't even need to support a negative claim but rather simply evaluate the positive.  In this case, however, all of a sudden the positive claim is more believable to you even though the negative claim requires no burden of proof.  That's where you expose your ignorance, in fact.  You acknowledge the fact that we are making the negative claim and yet you will not grant us the lack of a burden of proof.


It is always easier to prove or demonstrate a positive claim than a negative. I am not among the skeptics who "often claim" that they don't need to support a negative claim. You absolutely do have to support a negative claim, _but only if you actually make a negative claim_. In my perspective, I feel no need to make a negative claim to assert a god's non-existence, so I don't assert that. The thing I do assert is that if there is a god, then its characteristics are probably not the characteristics of god as described in the Bible -- and on that point I do have a burden of proof, which is a whole separate topic.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You are severely under-representing how easy it is to explain some of  these. There are libraries full of books and a vast field of apologetics of people going at great  lengths attempting to reconcile apparent Biblical contradictions. To say  that the authors were either stupid or lying with an ulterior motive is a false dichotomy. They  could also simply be honestly mistaken through no glaring fault of  their own. To have contradictory claims is not something that should be unexpected when you compile many different texts from many different  authors into a single "authentic" narrative. If we are to find two documents from  ancient Rome, and one of them says *in the text* that Emperor X died in year Y, and  the other one says *in the text* that Emperor X died in year Z, then all we have to do  is point to the texts themselves to demonstrate a contradiction. It  does not make sense to "give them the benefit of the doubt". We are  evaluating two different texts from two different authors. Perhaps both of them were simply writing based on the oral tradition in their particular geographic location. If the claim  about the contradiction is reasonable from simply looking at the texts,  it would then be up to somebody else to demonstrate why it is actually  even more reasonable to believe that both of the texts are true.


There are books answering these contradictions because there are just as many Bible critics spending just as much time dreaming up creative ways to make the Bible contradict itself.  Surely the existence of answers can't be construed as some sort of evidence that the answers are shaky or unreasonably "creative".  And you're right, it's a false dichotomy, but the simple fact is that we don't assume two authors came to completely different conclusions about a fact that they were apparently both witnesses to.  That would suggest there was something seriously wrong with one of their accounts, but if we're going to make that conclusion, the burden of proof is on the person who says there was something wrong with their accounts rather than the ones who say context is important and an apparent contradiction can probably be explained by something other than any mistake at all, never mind an "honest" one.  You can't just pull two seemingly opposing statements out of a text and assume they're some sort of mistake.  You first have to look at the context, and that's what all of these "libraries" of defenses against the supposed contradictions are doing.  They're pointing out context that the many skeptics readily leave out because they have no interest in the context.  They're just looking for mistakes and not being objective, so yeah, it takes a lot of work to respond to people who cause undue doubt about the congruence of the Biblical narrative by carelessly searching out anything that seems a little strange to them and automatically labeling it a "contradiction."




> Your standard for establishing a contradiction is *way* too high. If we always had to eliminate _all_ possible alternative explanations, then nothing in the world could ever be asserted as a contradiction. For any possible contradiction, there is an infinite number of possible explanations that can be invoked. Only a subset of those possible explanations are actually reasonable, and that is the part that matters. It all boils down to the question, is it more reasonable to believe that at least one of the statements is incorrect, or is it more reasonable to believe that both of the statements are correct? I would assume that we might differ greatly on whether a particular explanation is realistic. The problem is that you are starting with the assumption that there are no contradictions, and so the most reasonable explanation is considered to be realistic even though an equivalent explanation might not be considered realistic if applied to something other than the Bible.


You're attributing a standard to me that I never gave, which is a straw man argument.  OF COURSE I am talking about reasonable explanations, not ridiculous ones.  All we have to do is point out one possible explanation that fits all the facts and doesn't generate more questions than it answers.  The burden of proof is on you that we can't do that.  You have to prove, first, that there is no reasonable explanation for the facts in the narrative.  For every "contradiction" offered, there are usually multiple REASONABLE theories that make the two statements compatible.  You have to prove that all of those explanations fail in order to establish that an actual contradiction is the most reasonable explanation.




> It is always easier to prove or demonstrate a positive claim than a negative. I am not among the skeptics who "often claim" that they don't need to support a negative claim. You absolutely do have to support a negative claim, _but only if you actually make a negative claim_. In my perspective, I feel no need to make a negative claim to assert a god's non-existence, so I don't assert that. The thing I do assert is that if there is a god, then its characteristics are probably not the characteristics of god as described in the Bible -- and on that point I do have a burden of proof, which is a whole separate topic.


Yes, it is, and I think you're wrong about that, too, but more to the point, the burden of proof lies solely on you, the skeptic, to prove that there's a contradiction.  This is the way it's done in evaluating historical texts.  You can't give equal weight to the "mistake" theory as you do to the "there must be an explanation" theory.  Historians always look for an explanation before chalking it up to some kind of "mistake" because investigating why the two claims were made may open up opportunities for further discovery. 

So before you tell Christians that they are just coming up with creative excuses to avoid a problem, you need to question whether there was actually a problem in the first place.  As with all ancient texts, you need to prove that one of the accounts can't be trusted, and if you fail to prove it, then the accounts in the Bible come out just as unscathed as before you showed up.

----------


## Crashland

> There are books answering these contradictions because there are just as many making the claims that they exist.  Surely the existence of answers can't be construed as some sort of evidence that the answers are shaky or unreasonably "creative".  And you're right, it's a false dichotomy, but the simple fact is that we don't assume two authors came to completely different conclusions about a fact that they were apparently both witnesses to.  That would suggest there was something seriously wrong with one of their accounts, but if we're going to make that conclusion, the burden of proof is on the person who says there was something wrong with their accounts rather than the ones who say context is important and an apparent contradiction can probably be explained by something other than any mistake at all, never mind an "honest" one.  You can't just pull two seemingly opposing statements out of a text and assume they're some sort of mistake.  You first have to look at the context, and that's what all of these "libraries" of defenses against the supposed contradictions are doing.  They're pointing out context that the many skeptics readily leave out because they have no interest in the context.  They're just looking for mistakes and not being objective, so yeah, it takes a lot of work to respond to people who cause undue doubt about the congruence of the Biblical narrative by carelessly searching out anything that seems a little strange to them and automatically labeling it a "contradiction."
> 
> 
> 
> You're attributing a standard to me that I never gave, which is a straw man argument.  OF COURSE I am talking about reasonable explanations, not ridiculous ones.  All we have to do is point out one possible explanation that fits all the facts and doesn't generate more questions than it answers.  The burden of proof is on you that we can't do that.  You have to prove, first, that there is no reasonable explanation for the facts in the narrative.  For every "contradiction" offered, there are usually multiple REASONABLE theories that make the two statements compatible.  You have to prove that all of those explanations fail in order to establish that an actual contradiction is the most reasonable explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is, and I think you're wrong about that, too, but more to the point, the burden of proof lies solely on you, the skeptic, to prove that there's a contradiction.  This is the way it's done in evaluating historical texts.  You can't give equal weight to the "mistake" theory as you do to the "there must be an explanation" theory.  Historians always look for an explanation before chalking it up to some kind of "mistake" because investigating why the two claims were made may open up opportunities for further discovery. 
> ...


I agree with, well, almost everything in the above post. I don't think we will get much further though if we are just looking at a high level with a laundry list of contradictions, because now we are just speaking in generalizations about the kinds of contradictions that tend to get claimed and the kinds of explanations that tend to get offered. But that's this thread for you.

Actually, personally I don't think that the Bible being errant or having contradictions is really much of an impediment to belief in the message of Christianity. Or in other words, I think Christians are making things unnecessarily difficult for themselves and for convincing nonbelievers by maintaining a standard of inerrancy. The things that bother me are logical or observational contradictions, not historical/factual ones.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I agree with, well, almost everything in the above post. I don't think we will get much further though if we are just looking at a high level with a laundry list of contradictions, because now we are just speaking in generalizations about the kinds of contradictions that tend to get claimed and the kinds of explanations that tend to get offered. But that's this thread for you.
> 
> Actually, personally I don't think that the Bible being errant or having contradictions is really much of an impediment to belief in the message of Christianity. Or in other words, I think Christians are making things unnecessarily difficult for themselves and for convincing nonbelievers by maintaining a standard of inerrancy. The things that bother me are logical or observational contradictions, not historical/factual ones.


Good assessment.  Atheists can't just throw a bunch of crap against a wall and see what sticks.  They actually have to take a concrete stance in order to make any sort of argument, but what seems to be the trend is that they just generate these contradictions in machine gun fashion and leave the Christians with the mess.

There are many Christians who don't believe Bible inerrancy is important, but I disagree on that point because I do think an inerrant God is capable of making a script that accurately reflects what He wants to convey to people.  Notice, however, the important distinction between the original manuscript and the ones that came after it.  The fact that copies may have small scribal errors says nothing about what God is _able_ to convey, although He still could have allowed such mistakes to be made by humans for a particular purpose because He happens to want the message to be continued in a particular way.  For instance, the existence of these small scribal errors, rather than being a bad thing, help verify that the text has never been completely under the control of any particular sect and subsequently corrupted.  

Despite all of this, however, there is no evidence that any of this significantly changes the meaning of the original message and the authenticity of the text really does help to establish the uniqueness of Christianity apart from any other religion, since no other text even comes close to the Bible's standard for authenticity.

----------


## Crashland

> Good assessment.  Atheists can't just throw a bunch of crap against a wall and see what sticks.  They actually have to take a concrete stance in order to make any sort of argument, but what seems to be the trend is that they just generate these contradictions in machine gun fashion and leave the Christians with the mess.


The crap against the wall helps reinforce a confirmation bias for non-Christians and also serves to motivate Christians to look at the Bible with a more critical eye, even if it just turns out to be consulting Christian apologetics. I suppose it has its purpose but I am not a fan and IMO it makes non-Christian arguments look weaker when bad arguments are all lumped in with good points in the machine gun ammo.




> There are many Christians who don't believe Bible inerrancy is important, but I disagree on that point because I do think an inerrant God is capable of making a script that accurately reflects what He wants to convey to people.  Notice, however, the important distinction between the original manuscript and the ones that came after it.  The fact that copies may have small scribal errors says nothing about what God is _able_ to convey, although He still could have allowed such mistakes to be made by humans for a particular purpose because He happens to want the message to be continued in a particular way.  For instance, the existence of these small scribal errors, rather than being a bad thing, help verify that the text has never been completely under the control of any particular sect and subsequently corrupted.  
> 
> Despite all of this, however, there is no evidence that any of this significantly changes the meaning of the original message and the authenticity of the text really does help to establish the uniqueness of Christianity apart from any other religion, since no other text even comes close to the Bible's standard for authenticity.


An inerrant God would be capable of that for sure, but what he wants to convey might not include the age of this or that person when they died or how many people showed up at this or that gathering. I don't really see an inherent problem with God using an errant script to convey an inerrant message. I mean, in the Bible God himself uses imperfect people to carry out his will all the time.

----------


## TER

The Holy Scriptures is inerrant in _skopos_, that is, in the general message and revelation of God that is being revealed, namely that God is the Creator and that He became Man in order to save humankind from death.  That there seems to be contradictions or inconsistencies should not be a cause for alarm, for while the various texts were inspired by God, they were written and copied and translated by men, who are not infallible, for only God is infallible.  In fact, if any version could even claim to be infallible, it would at least have to be the original writings, in the original language, and even then, human error could be a factor.  

Thus, just as an icon or image of Christ which a prayerful man may draw using lines and colors may not resemble inerrantly the visage of Jesus Christ, likewise the icon or image of the Word of God in letters and words may contain inconsequential inconsistencies by appearance.  These do not diminish the skopos or greater message being revealed.

Apparent inconsistencies are only a problem for those who have erroneously made the Bible _into God Himself_ and thus cannot tolerate any deviation or inaccuracies, for God is perfect, and thus, if the Scriptures are idolized as God, then they too cannot have any inaccuracies.  But this is an improper understanding of the Scriptures.  The Logos (which is poorly translated as 'Word' in the English language) of God is not a book, but rather the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

 We call the Scriptures 'the Word of God' because it is an icon or image in letters and words of God's revelation in written form, however, there is only One Living Word of God, and He is not a book or a drawing or anything thought up or designed by the mind or hand of man, but rather the Incarnate Word Jesus Christ Who has come from Heaven in order to reveal the Father and offer salvation for mankind.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> The Holy Scriptures is inerrant in _skopos_, that is, in the general message and revelation of God that is being revealed, namely that God is the Creator and that He became Man in order to save humankind from death. That there seems to be contradictions or inconsistencies should not be a cause for alarm, for while the various texts were inspired by God, they were written and copied and translated by men, who are not infallible, for only God is infallible. In fact, if any version could even claim to be infallible, it would at least have to be the original writings, in the original language, and even then, human error could be a factor. 
> 
> Thus, just as an icon or image of Christ which a prayerful man may draw using lines and colors may not resemble inerrantly the visage of Jesus Christ, likewise the icon or image of the Word of God in letters and words may contain inconsequential inconsistencies by appearance. These do not diminish the skopos or greater message being revealed.
> 
> Apparent inconsistencies are only a problem for those who have erroneously made the Bible _into God Himself_ and thus cannot tolerate any deviation or inaccuracies, for God is perfect, and thus, if the Scriptures are idolized as God, then they too cannot have any inaccuracies. But this is an improper understanding of the Scriptures. The Logos (which is poorly translated as 'Word' in the English language) of God is not a book, but rather the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.
> 
> We call the Scriptures 'the Word of God' because it is an icon or image in letters and words of God's revelation in written form, however, there is only One Living Word of God, and He is not a book or a drawing or anything thought up or designed by the mind or hand of man, but rather the Incarnate Word Jesus Christ Who has come from Heaven in order to reveal the Father and offer salvation for mankind.


Then why not just call it what it REALLY is?  It currently gets pretty confusing for most folks involved.  

Or would that do some great damage to the effectiveness of the ~1,500 year old marketing sales pitch?

Thanks for your input.

----------


## Terry1

The written Bible is basically a guide book and a tool that people use when they're curious as to whom God is and don't really know Him.  It's a tangible, physical thing that curious minds can touch and connect with in order to learn more about God because that's all they can relate to at that point is something visible and tangible that they can see and touch.

  It's not that the written word is inerrant all by itself--but something spiritual happens to some people who sincerely want to know who God is.  God is able to connect with that soul because that soul is His creation in the first place and God is never apart from His own creation.  He's aware of who is seeking Him out with a sincere heart and mind.  It's those whom God will reveal via His Holy Spirit the revelations of truth that can't be seen with the naked eye in the written word.

So what's inerrant is not the tangible thing that can be felt, touched and read--what is inerrant is Gods truth and given to that person spiritually via the Holy Spirit that opens the door to a spiritual understanding and the meaning of what God is attempting to say to them.  What we do as a result of our belief are physical actions because we live in physical bodies.  This is also called an *act of faith* being that we act upon our belief by doing something in response to what we've been given spiritually.  This is how God works through us as we're called to witness to others in order to win souls for Christ.

The Bible--or the written word is simply something God gave us that's tangible--something that draws us to Him out of curiosity since being made flesh and blood mankind needs the physical and requires it as much as he needs the spirit just the same.   After all--the men who wrote it didn't have the written word to go by--only that which was given them via the Spirit of God to pass on to the rest of humanity.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> The written Bible is basically a guide book and a tool that people use when they're curious as to whom God is and don't really know Him. It's a tangible, physical thing that curious minds can touch and connect with in order to learn more about God because that's all they can relate to at that point is something visible and tangible that they can see and touch.
> 
> It's not that the written word is inerrant all by itself--but something spiritual happens to some people who sincerely want to know who God is. God is able to connect with that soul because that soul is His creation in the first place and God is never apart from His own creation. He's aware of who is seeking Him out with a sincere heart and mind. It's those whom God will reveal via His Holy Spirit the revelations of truth that can't be seen with the naked eye in the written word.
> 
> So what's inerrant is not the tangible thing that can be felt, touched and read--what is inerrant is Gods truth and given to that person spiritually via the Holy Spirit that opens the door to a spiritual understanding and the meaning of what God is attempting to say to them. What we do as a result of our belief are physical actions because we live in physical bodies. This is also called an *act of faith* being that we act upon our belief by doing something in response to what we've been given spiritually. This is how God works through us as we're called to witness to others in order to win souls for Christ.
> 
> The Bible--or the written word is simply something God gave us that's tangible--something that draws us to Him out of curiosity since being made flesh and blood mankind needs the physical and requires it as much as he needs the spirit just the same. After all--the men who wrote it didn't have the written word to go by--only that which was given them via the Spirit of God to pass on to the rest of humanity.


*
STOP!* You're beginning to sound like TER, and it's freaking me out.  *LOL!*

----------


## Terry1

> *
> STOP!* You're beginning to sound like TER, and it's freaking me out.  *LOL!*


We do sort of *echo each other in our belief. I tend to agree with TER more than not.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Even that needs to be questioned and examined because a lot of people want to call themselves "prophets" these days and are teaching false prophecies.  Better to trust in the Lord via the Holy Spirit.  That way you get it straight from the horse mouth.  Bible says there will be tons of false prophets popping up in the last days.


It does, but why? If it was just a matter of all prophets in the last days being false, wouldn't the Lord just have warned against anyone claiming to be a prophet? But He doesn't, instead He warns us not against all prophets but against false prophets. To me He is warning us that there will be _true_ prophets as well as false prophets, and by following His wisdom to look to their fruits we can know the false from the true. 

That is the absolute key. You are absolutely correct that we need the Holy Spirit to be our guide. The testimony of the Spirit is, for me, the essential "fruit" to judge by, after all even good doctrines and righteous acts will be looked down upon by the wicked and be discounted by the deceived. Only the Holy Spirit can grant true discernment on spiritual things. 

And that is why I believe in modern prophets. The Holy Spirit has testified to me, in my mind, heart, and spirit, that those I listen  to are true prophets and of God, true modern apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, and true messengers of Heavenly Father speaking His words and guiding His church.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> It does, but why? If it was just a matter of all prophets in the last days being false, wouldn't the Lord just have warned against anyone claiming to be a prophet? But He doesn't, instead He warns us not against all prophets but against false prophets. To me He is warning us that there will be _true_ prophets as well as false prophets, and by following His wisdom to look to their fruits we can know the false from the true. 
> 
> That is the absolute key. You are absolutely correct that we need the Holy Spirit to be our guide. The testimony of the Spirit is, for me, the essential "fruit" to judge by, after all even good doctrines and righteous acts will be looked down upon by the wicked and be discounted by the deceived. Only the Holy Spirit can grant true discernment on spiritual things. 
> 
> And that is why I believe in modern prophets. The Holy Spirit has testified to me, in my mind, heart, and spirit, that those I listen to are true prophets and of God, true modern apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, and true messengers of Heavenly Father speaking His words and guiding His church.


Just out of curiosity, are you getting any Holy Spirit vibes about Paul? And if so, what?

Thanks!

----------


## S.Shorland

Was John the Baptist Elijah who was to come?
(a) Yes (Matthew II: 14, 17:10-13)
(b) No(John 1:19-21)

Elijah is likely the first of the coming 'special' people: 1 Elijah 2. Israeli King (false 'jewish' 'messiah') 3. muslim mahdi 4. muslim (false 'jesus') Isa 5.Return of Our Lord Jesus Christ

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Was John the Baptist Elijah who was to come?
> (a) Yes (Matthew II: 14, 17:10-13)
> (b) No(John 1:19-21)
> 
> Elijah is likely the first of the coming 'special' people: 1 Elijah 2. Israeli King (false 'jewish' 'messiah') 3. muslim mahdi 4. muslim (false 'jesus') Isa 5.Return of Our Lord Jesus Christ


John 1:19-21?

----------


## S.Shorland

www.endofhistory.info

----------


## Ronin Truth

Are you having an argument with your Bible?

----------

