Biblical errors - SciForums.com

spunks239

12-30-01, 10:05 PM

Here's how I view it, they are not contradictions:

"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." -- Ezekiel 18:20

Meaning: The children will not be punished for the sins of their parents, after all it was not the children who committed the sin, but the parents, if the children choose not to.

"I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation..." -- Exodus 20:5

Meaning: The LORD is a jealous God, he does not want anyone worshipping any artificial kind of crap, he wants HIS people to worship him, the only and true God. Many people do not believe in God...instead someone or something else (which is artificial) and he does not approve of this, because he is the one who created us....

FOR EXAMPLE: Let's say we have a married couple named Fred and Betty....Neither of them believe in God...in fact they instead worship some golden calf (which happened in the Bible),....when in fact that worthless calf has no life or feelings towards them unlike God who does care about them so much and it makes him angry that they would worship anything like that...(If you can't imagine what I'm talking about...think about how it would be like you worshipping the AIR!)...yes crazy isn't it?.....well it just so happens they have a daughter named Sue, and since Fred and Betty are worshipping the golden calf, it would be hard for Sue not to worship it to, so she does (by choice AND INFLUENCE FROM HER PARENTS)....she has also made the stupid mistake by following her parent's "religion". Sue also gets married and she has a boy...., but this boy does not choose to worship the golden calf, and instead worship God...this boy will not be punished because he has chosen God.....but on the other hand, Fred, Betty, and their daughter Sue will be punished ( to HELL), because they did not choose God, Sue did not have much of a choice because of her parents great influence who brought her to the cattle every Saturday to worship it, and she became used to it. Luckily Sue's son choose the right path....and his children probably will too from his influence on them.
to summarize it: the first 2 generations were condemned for their disloyalty, but then the third generation and so forth was saved, because they chose the right path to go.

**ALSO**If anyone has any questions about this you can ask me I will be happy to help you understand it better....: e-mail: spunky2239@aol.com

tony1

12-31-01, 05:07 AM

*Originally posted by James R
tony1,

You are an incredibly muddy thinker. Still, I guess you need that in order to be able to hold so many mutually contradictory ideas in your head at once and to believe them all. *

I believe God.
I believe you are intelligent.

I see your point.

*Originally posted by tiassa
Simply: the two verses describe contradictory states. How and why is this? *

Not contradictory.
Why?, too much drug ingestion on your part?

The sons don't die for the fathers' sins, but since they have no one else to learn from, they learn their fathers' sins.

Short form: Like father, like son.

Avatar

12-31-01, 07:29 AM

"worshipping the AIR"

AIR, I love AIR, I simply can't live without it. Ammmmmm, Ammmm,Ammmmmm;)

sin is a stupid concept meant for other ages.
people are not stupid you know
---worship only me and I thou nost, thee shall burn in lake of fire.---
It even sounds stupid and somehow dated[ maybe it sounded good 5000 years ago, but not now]. I have a freedom of choice and I choose in what I beleive. And if some christian fundie thinks he can scare me with internal flames, wellllll let his think so:)

It is truly stupid to beleive tht only christians shall be rewarded after death, or anyone will. Why that top priority. They are scared of unknown and thus think of a good hidding place, behing concept of one god, tht shall reward only them after the apocalypsis.
What about Hidu, Islam, Mormon, Buddhism, all those pagan beleifs.
You think tht you are better then they are. Check istory records. Everyone has its bad sides, but no religion has killed so many people as christtianity did and does now, only spiritually[second id Islam, a latter side branch of christianity very modified by Muhamed to fit his beleifs].

Take a look in what America is turnong into.
God save America. and new born christians and fundies everywhere, allowing you not to live.
[where did the rest of the world go?:)]

Tiassa

12-31-01, 08:15 AM

well it just so happens they have a daughter named Sue, and since Fred and Betty are worshipping the golden calf, it would be hard for Sue not to worship it to, so she does (by choice AND INFLUENCE FROM HER PARENTS)....she has also made the stupid mistake by following her parent's "religion". Sue also gets married and she has a boy...., but this boy does not choose to worship the golden calf, and instead worship God...this boy will not be punished because he has chosen God.....but on the other hand, Fred, Betty, and their daughter Sue will be punished ( to HELL), because they did not choose God, Sue did not have much of a choice because of her parents great influence who brought her to the cattle every Saturday to worship it, and she became used to it.You speak much of people's choices here, but nothing of the Lord's: the Lord chooses to visit the iniquity of the fathers onto the sons. Is it, then, God's will that the sons should choose the calf?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Tiassa

12-31-01, 10:24 AM

The sons don't die for the fathers' sins, but since they have no one else to learn from, they learn their fathers' sins.

Short form: Like father, like son.So if I have you correctly:

* The sons shall not bear the iniquities of the fathers, except that they shall because the Lord shall visit those iniquities upon them.

Nonetheless--like father, like son is a result, and speaks nothing of the process.

You seem to be avoiding the contradiction that the Bible says two things which equal opposing states. Now, that one of them is reflected in allegory is, actually, aside. These things you have addressed are known and recognized issues, but they speak nothing of the fact that the Bible makes statements which equal contradictory states.

There is an academic exploration to be undertaken here, but I'm curious why you don't pursue it; a possible reconciliation which could be provided which you choose not to offer.

Tell you what: I'll do the reading again and post it for you, since you have chosen not to address it.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Markx

12-31-01, 11:33 AM

Since I am no expert in religion but I do think that certian things are contradicting, errors or Confusion. I start with simple things, And would like to hear simple answers. If you guys can shed some light ( religious experts ) that would be great. Don't give me every day BS by telling it is one of the God's mystery. Thanks in advance.

Jesus' first sermon plain or mount?

Matt.5:1,2: "And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And
he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying...."

Luke6:17,20: "And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great
multitude of people...came to hear him.. And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said..."

Now which one to believe in?. Aren't they talking about same moment??? Or they are different. Help me out thanks.

Another thing that confuses me is here,

The GENEALOGY OF JESUS?

In two places in the New Testament the genealogy of Jesus son of Mary is mentioned.
Matthew 1:6-16 and Luke
3:23-31. Each gives the ancestors of Joseph the CLAIMED husband of Mary and Step father of Jesus. The first
one starts from Abraham(verse 2) all the way down to Jesus. The second one from Jesus all the way back to Adam. The
only common name to these two lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH.

How can this be true? and also How can
Jesus have a genealogy when all Muslims and most Christians believe that Jesus had/has no father.

Thanks in advance.

tony1

12-31-01, 01:17 PM

*Originally posted by Avatar
people are not stupid you know*

Somebody has to be, and that somebody is people.

*I have a freedom of choice and I choose in what I beleive.*

God says that.

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both you and your seed may live:
(Deuteronomy 30:19, KJV).

* And if some christian fundie thinks he can scare me with internal flames, wellllll let his think so*

Internal flames?
Is that like heartburn?

*It is truly stupid to beleive tht only christians shall be rewarded after death, or anyone will. Why that top priority. They are scared of unknown and thus think of a good hidding place, behing concept of one god, tht shall reward only them after the apocalypsis.*

It may be stupid but it works for me, except for the "reward after the apocalypse."

The reward is NOW, and then.

Wealth and riches shall be in his house: and his righteousness endures for ever.
(Psalms 112:3, KJV).

*What about Hidu, Islam, Mormon, Buddhism, all those pagan beleifs.*

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Does that answer your question?

*You think tht you are better then they are.*

No, just right.

*Take a look in what America is turnong into.
God save America. and new born christians and fundies everywhere, allowing you not to live.
[where did the rest of the world go?*

I don't know, is it gone?
Besides, anyone at all will allow you not to live.
Hindus will allow you not to live.
Muslims will allow you not to live.
Buddhists will allow you not to live.
Pagans will allow you not to live.
It's a free world if you want to not live.

*Originally posted by tiassa
Tell you what: I'll do the reading again and post it for you, since you have chosen not to address it.*

Thanks, tiassa.

*Originally posted by Markx
Aren't they talking about same moment?*

Jesus spoke more than once.

Luke event is immediately after choosing his disciples, whereas Matt. event is after choosing his disciples AND going thru Galilee and Syria and THEN going up the mountain.

Besides, the Luke event is closer to the Mediterranean since people were there from Tyre and Sidon which are seaports.
The Matt. event is farther from the sea since people from Jordan and beyond are mentioned as being there.

*The GENEALOGY OF JESUS?
How can this be true?*

Who said it was supposed to be true?
In fact, who said both genealogies were supposed to be true?

One genealogy is presented as a SUPPOSITION....

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
(Luke 3:23, KJV).

So what is the problem if people thought that and thought wrong?
Many people in this forum think wrong and think nothing of it.

*How can
Jesus have a genealogy when all Muslims and most Christians believe that Jesus had/has no father.*

I don't know of anyone yet that has figured that Jesus had no father.
That is definitely a new one.

Markx

12-31-01, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by tony1
*[i]Originally posted by Avatar

*Originally posted by Markx
Aren't they talking about same moment?*

Jesus spoke more than once.

Luke event is immediately after choosing his disciples, whereas Matt. event is after choosing his disciples AND going thru Galilee and Syria and THEN going up the mountain.

Besides, the Luke event is closer to the Mediterranean since people were there from Tyre and Sidon which are seaports.
The Matt. event is farther from the sea since people from Jordan and beyond are mentioned as being there.

*The GENEALOGY OF JESUS?
How can this be true?*

Who said it was supposed to be true?
In fact, who said both genealogies were supposed to be true?

One genealogy is presented as a SUPPOSITION....

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
(Luke 3:23, KJV).

So what is the problem if people thought that and thought wrong?
Many people in this forum think wrong and think nothing of it.

*How can
Jesus have a genealogy when all Muslims and most Christians believe that Jesus had/has no father.*

I don't know of anyone yet that has figured that Jesus had no father.
That is definitely a new one.

So what you are saing here is that those geneologies are not true??? But they are still in Bible?? Word of God?

"One genealogy is presented as a SUPPOSITION" Preseneted by a man. Correct?. Supposition in God's word? What are you trying to say here?? All our life we take Bible as word of God the True word of God and now you just told me that it is not suppose to be true?? You confuse me again.

And now you are saing that Jesus has/had a father??? So you are denying the mircle birth without a man?. Now it could be whole new topic to discuss.

"So what is the problem if people thought that and thought wrong?"

So what people are you talking about people in Bible? If thats what you mean then Bible is not pure word of God since God doesn't make mistakes ?? Am I correct??

I do apperciate you explanation regarding my first question and thank you for clearing it up.

blonde_cupid

12-31-01, 02:14 PM

Regarding the question concerning the seeming contradiction between Exodus 20:5 and Ezekiel 18:20... If one reads Ezekiel 18 in its entirety, they might find that a similar question was asked and answered more than 1400 years ago.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ezekiel 18
1
The word of the LORD came to me:
2
"What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel: "`The fathers eat sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge'?
3
"As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel.
4
For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son--both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die.
5
"Suppose there is a righteous man who does what is just and right.
6
He does not eat at the mountain shrines or look to the idols of the house of Israel. He does not defile his neighbor's wife or lie with a woman during her period.
7
He does not oppress anyone, but returns what he took in pledge for a loan. He does not commit robbery but gives his food to the hungry and provides clothing for the naked.
8
He does not lend at usury or take excessive interest. He withholds his hand from doing wrong and judges fairly between man and man.
9
He follows my decrees and faithfully keeps my laws. That man is righteous; he will surely live, declares the Sovereign LORD.
10
"Suppose he has a violent son, who sheds blood or does any of these other things
11
(though the father has done none of them): "He eats at the mountain shrines. He defiles his neighbor's wife.
12
He oppresses the poor and needy. He commits robbery. He does not return what he took in pledge. He looks to the idols. He does detestable things.
13
He lends at usury and takes excessive interest. Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he will surely be put to death and his blood will be on his own head.
14
"But suppose this son has a son who sees all the sins his father commits, and though he sees them, he does not do such things:
15
"He does not eat at the mountain shrines or look to the idols of the house of Israel. He does not defile his neighbor's wife.
16
He does not oppress anyone or require a pledge for a loan. He does not commit robbery but gives his food to the hungry and provides clothing for the naked.
17
He withholds his hand from sin and takes no usury or excessive interest. He keeps my laws and follows my decrees. He will not die for his father's sin; he will surely live.
18
But his father will die for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people.
19
"Yet you ask, `Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live.
20
The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
21
"But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die.
22
None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live.
23
Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?
24
"But if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked man does, will he live? None of the righteous things he has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness he is guilty of and because of the sins he has committed, he will die.
25
"Yet you say, `The way of the Lord is not just.' Hear, O house of Israel: Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust?
26
If a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin, he will die for it; because of the sin he has committed he will die.
27
But if a wicked man turns away from the wickedness he has committed and does what is just and right, he will save his life.
28
Because he considers all the offenses he has committed and turns away from them, he will surely live; he will not die.
29
Yet the house of Israel says, `The way of the Lord is not just.' Are my ways unjust, O house of Israel? Is it not your ways that are unjust?
30
"Therefore, O house of Israel, I will judge you, each one according to his ways, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall.
31
Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, O house of Israel?
32
For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If one sees in the Bible a recording of a developing relationship between God* and man which involves a number of changing covenants between the two as the relationship progressed, they might come to a better understanding of the differences. In this case, Ezekiel speaks to a newer covenant than the one recorded in Exodus.

Tiassa

12-31-01, 02:58 PM

Good post for a start; it's at least a part of what I was after when I mentioned to Tony1 that there was an academic avenue yet untread. While I think the ellipsus is certainly more fair than the omissions in Tony1's text, it is always interesting to see if anyone turns to the larger text to derive context.

It would seem that the context of the Ezekiel chapter is that the sons shall not bear the iniquities of the fathers; we recognize, however, the choice of those who would continue living according to what is prescribed as sinful.

But this does not begin to approach the contradiction. You have, in your post, affirmed the contracted summary of the Ezekiel verse, and supported KalvinB's point about the choices made by the sons. However, what of what the sons do not choose?

The other half of the contradiction presented: I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation (Exodus 20.5).

The Lord has said through His prophet that the sons shall not bear the iniquities of the fathers. Is this a revision of the Lord's prior declaration that he shall visit the iniquities of the fathers unto the sons? Is this a correction? A retraction? What, on the day of Ezekiel's prophecy, prompted the change? It would seem that the Word of God, while consistent and true according to faith, continually creates transitory and contradictory states, such as asserted in the topic post.

How is it that the sons shall not bear the iniquities of the fathers if the Lord will intentionally visit those iniquities unto those sons?

We understand the point about choosing to live according to sinful ways; it speaks nothing, however, of the choices the Lord makes.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

blonde_cupid

12-31-01, 03:34 PM

tiassa,

At the time of Exodus, the relationship between man and God* was in its infancy. At that time, a son didn't have much of a choice as all he could know is that which his father taught him. Since it would take generations for the relationship to mature to a point where a son had the knowledge of God* sufficient to make his own decisions, it was incumbent upon the fathers of the Exodus generation to lead by example and it was made clear there would be severe consequences upon their family for generations if the fathers chose the way of unrighteousness.

At the time of Ezekiel, although iniquities continued to be visited upon sons through the example of some fathers and through the ever-present temptations in the world, by that time, sons of Israel had sufficient knowledge of God* to have their own personal relationship with God* and make their own choices.

tony1

12-31-01, 05:00 PM

*Originally posted by Markx
So what you are saing here is that those geneologies are not true??? But they are still in Bible?? Word of God?*

It is true that the one genealogy is a SUPPOSED genealogy.
It is true that people supposed that.
Is that some kind of a problem?

*"One genealogy is presented as a SUPPOSITION" Preseneted by a man. Correct?. Supposition in God's word? What are you trying to say here?? All our life we take Bible as word of God the True word of God and now you just told me that it is not suppose to be true?? You confuse me again.*

It's just you confusing yourself.
If you kill someone and tell the police that you didn't, it isn't a lie when the police report says, "He said he didn't kill the victim," even though you did.

*And now you are saing that Jesus has/had a father??? So you are denying the mircle birth without a man?. Now it could be whole new topic to discuss.*

Who said anything about a man?
You just brought it up.

*So what people are you talking about people in Bible? If thats what you mean then Bible is not pure word of God since God doesn't make mistakes ?? Am I correct?? *

God correctly reported that people were wrong.
Besides, where did you get the idea that the Bible is the word of God, when it has words by dozens of beings in it?

*Originally posted by tiassa
While I think the ellipsus is certainly more fair than the omissions in Tony1's text, it is always interesting to see if anyone turns to the larger text to derive context.*

Nah, in discussions like these, context is rarely discussed due to the flat, literal nature of the "contradictions."
Since most "contradictions" are a result of failing to read what is actually written, no context is required.

*However, what of what the sons do not choose? *

That would be the question of import.

*The Lord has said through His prophet that the sons shall not bear the iniquities of the fathers.*

Ezekiel is saying that the sons will not die because of the penalty due their fathers.
Each man dies as the penalty for his own sin.

*How is it that the sons shall not bear the iniquities of the fathers if the Lord will intentionally visit those iniquities unto those sons?

We understand the point about choosing to live according to sinful ways; it speaks nothing, however, of the choices the Lord makes.*

The choice the Lord makes is to honor both his and the fathers' words.

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
(Deuteronomy 30:19, KJV).

The father makes this choice after Exodus and prior to Ezekiel.
A choice to live means that both you and your seed MAY live.
A choice to die means that both you and your seed may NOT live.
Thus, the father curses the son by making a poor choice.
The Lord then visits that poor choice, i.e. iniquity, onto the son.

The Lord is not forcing the son to sin; he is merely enforcing the term of the contract made by the father in De. 30:19.
The son may live under the curse, cursed but not sinning, in which case he would not have to bear the iniquity of his father, i.e. die for the father's sin.

*Originally posted by blonde_cupid
it was made clear there would be severe consequences upon their family for generations if the fathers chose the way of unrighteousness.*

There still are those severe consequences, i.e. curses, in existence.

One main one is this...

And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
(Genesis 12:3, KJV).

Simply observe the result on any person or nation who has made anti-Semitic statements or taken anti-Semitic actions.
Curses are baaaaaaaaaaad news.

Markx

12-31-01, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by tony1

*Originally posted by tony1

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
(Luke 3:23, KJV).

Ok here is another thing, Are they talking about same Joseph?

" MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was
the son of Heli. "

So was Jospeh son of Heli or Jacob?

I brought it up becuase I think you said,

How can
Jesus have a genealogy when all Muslims and most Christians believe that Jesus had/has no father.*

I don't know of anyone yet that has figured that Jesus had no father.
That is definitely a new one. [/B]

I am still not sure what you mean by this. So are you beeing Sarcastic?

Tiassa

12-31-01, 05:25 PM

Nah, in discussions like these, context is rarely discussed due to the flat, literal nature of the "contradictions."
Since most "contradictions" are a result of failing to read what is actually written, no context is required.That's the point, the very academic point I was hinting at. Now, I'll even put aside your running disregard for context in order to ask what is so hard for a Christian to explain about that larger reading. If the appearance of contradiction is a failure to read completely, then perhaps you might demonstrate that instead of just say it. Blonde Cupid has gotten a start on it, now if you'd like to compare the larger text of the Exodus citation, go for it. But since you say the larger text doesn't show a contradiction, show it. I, personally, agree with the appearance of contradiction; it is possible to demonstrate otherwise, but why do you sit there saying that something is and merely expect us to see it? Again, we come back to the issue whereby I accuse that you expect all people to read the same words the same way. Cupid showed us the larger text of Ezekiel, and insofar as I can tell, the larger text supports the idea that the sons shall not bear the iniquities of the father.

The Exodus citation, as offered, says that the sons shall bear the iniquities of the father by proxy of those iniquities being visited on them by the Lord. This visitation of iniquity seems to have nothing to do with the choices the sons make. What you, KalvinB, and Blonde Cupid point out is applicable, but in a different debate. You keep telling us much about the choices of the sons and of the fathers, but none about the Lord's choice to visit those iniquities unto the sons.

If the appearance of contradiction comes from an inappropriate abridgement of the text, then please demonstrate that.

chuckling,
Tiassa :cool:

Tiassa

12-31-01, 05:36 PM

At the time of Exodus, the relationship between man and God* was in its infancy. At that time, a son didn't have much of a choice as all he could know is that which his father taught him. Since it would take generations for the relationship to mature to a point where a son had the knowledge of God* sufficient to make his own decisions, it was incumbent upon the fathers of the Exodus generation to lead by example and it was made clear there would be severe consequences upon their family for generations if the fathers chose the way of unrighteousness.

At the time of Ezekiel, although iniquities continued to be visited upon sons through the example of some fathers and through the ever-present temptations in the world, by that time, sons of Israel had sufficient knowledge of God* to have their own personal relationship with God* and make their own choices.2 primary questions:

1) You continue to speak of the choices of the sons. The Exodus citation refers to the choice made by the Lord. It is not that I disagree with the principles of what you're communicating, but that I do not see the reconciliation of ideas. What do the sons' choices matter if the Lord will visit iniquity unto them anyway?

2) Does this running revision of the human relationship with God imply that all is not known from the outset? What need has God of revision? Mind you, your personal faith might explain how it is that God could need to go back and fix something about the way things are put together, but that's part of the problem: what is an individual's faith and what is a broader faith? No interpretation of God can escape the facts that the Lord says one thing in one verse and another in another, and that the two statements equal opposing states. Revision works, but I didn't think God made mistakes, and furthermore, what does this say of Biblical laws pertaining to homosexuality, diet, tattoos, haircuts, &c? That, perhaps, they are outdated laws from an earlier period in the development of the human relationship with God? What does this need for revision say of the Hebrew laws that Christ did not address? You know, the ones Paul got to, eventually? Did you go to the edge of town for the required period after your last bowel movement? It isn't that the idea isn't valid, Cupid, but that it invites a host of considerations toward the larger image of faith.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

blonde_cupid

12-31-01, 06:08 PM

tiassa,

I'm going out for a Japanese New Year's dinner. As for your questions, I'd better start with the first one only since I'm not sure what you're getting at:

***1) You continue to speak of the choices of the sons. The Exodus citation refers to the choice made by the Lord.***

I think we agree here. As I believe I stated, at Exodus, the sons really didn't have much of a choice:

"At the time of Exodus, the relationship between man and God* was in its infancy. At that time, a son didn't have much of a choice as all he could know is that which his father taught him."

***It is not that I disagree with the principles of what you're communicating, but that I do not see the reconciliation of ideas. What do the sons' choices matter if the Lord will visit iniquity unto them anyway?***

Perhaps we're not agreeing on what is meant by "visiting iniquity"?

Got to go...

Happy New Year.

tony1

12-31-01, 07:16 PM

*Originally posted by Markx
I am still not sure what you mean by this. So are you beeing Sarcastic?*

Nope.
I've heard of people arguing WHO the father was, but I've never heard of no father at all.

Anyway, Joseph in a true genealogy and in a supposed one could be the same.
But a supposed genealogy could be wrong, otherwise it would be a true one.

Therefore, Joseph's father is Jacob, since the other genealogy is supposed, i.e. subject to error.

*Originally posted by tiassa
If the appearance of contradiction is a failure to read completely, then perhaps you might demonstrate that instead of just say it.*

No, you claim a contradiction, therefore the onus is on you to prove that there is one.
It isn't sufficient to create the impression of a contradiction.

*I, personally, agree with the appearance of contradiction; it is possible to demonstrate otherwise, but why do you sit there saying that something is and merely expect us to see it?*

Because you are alleging a contradiction, not me.

*the larger text supports the idea that the sons shall not bear the iniquities of the father.*

Of course, the sons will NOT bear the iniquities of the father.
The Lord will, however, visit the iniquities to the 3rd and 4th gens of those who hate the Lord.

*This visitation of iniquity seems to have nothing to do with the choices the sons make.*

Oh no.
The visitation is only on those who hate the Lord, such as yourself.
See, in the absence of hating the Lord, the sons are just fine.
If the father makes the choice to hate the Lord, then the son defaults to hating the Lord.
At any time, however, the son could make the choice to change, as could you.

In the case of fathers choosing to love the Lord, the Lord also visits their iniquity on their sons, but since there isn't any, it's a moot issue.

*none about the Lord's choice to visit those iniquities unto the sons.*

He honors your choices even as they apply to your children.
As you can see, visiting iniquities when there aren't any is moot.

*What do the sons' choices matter if the Lord will visit iniquity unto them anyway?*

It is only visited upon those who hate the Lord, as you do.
That curse goes away when, you choose to love the Lord yourself, as you could do.

*What need has God of revision?*

None, whatsoever.
If revision is indicated, then please demonstrate.

Markx

12-31-01, 08:12 PM

So tony1, If you are correct on what you said. Then Bible is not in it it's true form any more?? I knew about contradictions but people always try to make some excuses, It is nice to know your views. Now let me ask you this, Since there are man made things in Bible how can a one Believe and become convert to some thing men made? I know there is real writings in Bible as well but still why would some one wana become Christian when there are things men made?? Just a thought.

Stryder

12-31-01, 08:25 PM

The Biggest Biblical Error:

Who forgot the Copyright????

Hangon.... If a supposed infallible God, forgot to place a copyright upon a book of his words, wouldn't that mean he was in fact fallible? Does that mean we are doomed Tony1?

Personally I think we are just doomed to have people quote the retched thing for eternity.

It's just sinister how the topic can be resolved, How a mention of Primitive minds being tutored to write suffered the blight of a fabricative disease that we now know of as imagination.

How one tall taled story teller, took to the road similar to that of bards of ancient greece and caught attention, purely because people lacked entertainment back then (Other than throwning Tony1's Relatives to the Lions... Oh by the way Tony1... ever thought about re-enactments?).

It's amusing to think that ships use to have bards on board to keep their sailors amused, and at each port the bards would sing of the tales of the crew and their conquests... Although the crew might have only been fishing, a Bard would tell a story of how they hoisted in Mermaids, And fought against dreaded hydras as apart of their voyage to make the sailors seem foolhardy and wrought and to be the toast of attention to a town.

The Occasional, "You should have seen the fish I caught... it was this big" was the norm, and over time, the fish got bigger, and the methods of catching got more ludicrous that only a few stubbornly iggorant people choose to believe myths over the reality of Physics. I'm sure you them personally Tony1.

One last thing TONY1....

HAPPY NEW YEAR! :D

Markx

12-31-01, 11:10 PM

Happy new year to all of you here too. Stryderunknown, I got something for you regards to copy right. funny you brought it up :p :p

Teg

12-31-01, 11:34 PM

For the first statement to disconnect from the second, one of two presumptions are necessary:

1. The Lord/God cannot control some events. In this case the god is no longer omnipotent and is therefore invalidated.

2. There is an equally powerful force that can manipulate.

The first statement also carried an implication of divine power. When a biblical phrase is stated in absolute it is often understood that God/Lord is involved. Otherwise the bibles god is not an absolute power. See argument 2.

tony1

01-01-02, 12:37 PM

*Originally posted by Markx
Since there are man made things in Bible how can a one Believe and become convert to some thing men made? I know there is real writings in Bible as well but still why would some one wana become Christian when there are things men made?? Just a thought. *

There are houses mentioned in the Bible.

Should I quit believing in the Bible because there is a house mentioned in the Bible?

Or are you talking about some other man-made things?

*Originally posted by Stryderunknown
forgot to place a copyright upon a book of his words*

It isn't copyright so anyone can have a copy.
Which reminds me, the idiots who think they are copyrighting the Bible, aren't.
Thus if you see a copyrighted Bible, that would be a suspicious Bible.

*Oh by the way Tony1... ever thought about re-enactments?*

Yeah, but the humane societies get all bent out of shape when lions start getting killed.

*I'm sure you them personally Tony1.*

Yeah, you, Teg, Xelios, razz, etc.

BTW, Happy New Year, O great Stryderunknown, legendary battler of the imagination!

*Originally posted by Teg
For the first statement to disconnect from the second, one of two presumptions are necessary: *

Yes?

Happy New Year

razz

01-01-02, 01:29 PM

This is just the tip of the iceberg, I have about 60 pages of POSSIBLE mistakes within the bible.
Wonder what else was POSSIBLY mistaken.

As with the Resurrection, accounts clash in many respects.
(1) What color was the robe that was put on Jesus? Scarlet--Matt. 27:28 ("And they stripped him, and put on a scarlet robe") versus purple--Mark 15:17 ("And they clothed him with purple....") and John 19:2 ("...and they put on him a purple robe").

(2) When was the robe put on Jesus?
During his trial--John 19:1-2, 15 ("Then Pilate took Jesus, and scourged him. And the soldiers...put on him a purple robe.... Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King?") versus after Pilate delivered him to be crucified--Matt. 27:26-28 ("Then released he Barrabas unto them; and when he had scourged Jesus he delivered him to be crucified. Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into a common hall,...stripped him and put on him a scarlet robe") and Mark 15:15-17 ("And so Pilate, willing to content the people...delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified. And the soldiers led him away into the hall...and they clothed him with purple").

(3) At what hour was Jesus crucified?
The third hour--Mark 15:25 ("And it was the third hour, and they crucified him") versus before the sixth hour--Luke 23:43-44 ("And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise. And it was about the sixth hour....") versus after the sixth hour--John 19:14-16 ("...and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your king! But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him.... Then delivered he him unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away") to be crucified later.

(4) What was the inscription on the Cross?
"This is Jesus the King of the Jews" (Matt. 27:37) versus "The King of the Jews" (Mark 15:26) versus "This is the King of the Jews" (Luke 23:38) versus "Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews" (John 19:19).

(5) For what did the soldiers at the Cross cast lots?
His garments--Matt. 27:35 ("they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots") and Mark 15:24 ("And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take") and Luke 23:34 ("... And they parted his raiment, and cast lots") versus his coat alone--John 19:23-24 ("Then the soldiers when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be....").

(6) What was Jesus given to drink?
Vinegar--Matt. 27:48 ("And straightaway one of them ran, and took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar, and...gave him to drink") and Luke 23:36 ("And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him and offering him vinegar") and John 19:29-30 ("Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a sponge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished....") versus vinegar mingled with gall--Matt. 27:34 ("They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall") versus wine mingled with myrrh--Mark 15:23 ("And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh; but he received it not").

(7) When Jesus got the sponge filled with vinegar, who said they would see if Elijah would come to his rescue?
The person who actually gave him the sponge--Mark 15:36 ("And one ran and filled a sponge full of vinegar and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink, saying, Let alone; let us see whether Elias will come to take him down") versus those with the person who gave him the sponge--Matt. 27:48-49 ("And straightaway one of them ran, and took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him").

(8) How many of the thieves on the Cross reviled Jesus?
One--Luke 23:39-40 RSV ("One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, 'Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!' But the other rebuked him, saying, Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?") versus both--Matt. 27:44 RSV ("And the robbers who were crucified with him also reviled him in the same way") and Mark 15:32 ("And they that were crucified with him reviled him").

(9) Who were the named women watching the Crucifixion?
Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children--Matt. 27:55-56 versus Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the less and Joses and Salome--Mark 15:40 versus Jesus' mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene--John 19:25.

(10) From where did the women observe the Crucifixion?
From afar--Matt. 27:55-56 ("And many were beholding afar off...among which was Mary Magdalene...") and Luke 23:49 ("...and the women that followed him from Galilee, stood afar off, beholding these things") and Mark 15:40 ("There were also women looking on afar off; among whom was Mary Magdalene,....") versus near the cross--John 19:25 ("now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene").

Children--Punishment of children is one thing; child abuse is another. And, unfortunately, many biblical verses can be easily used to justify the former by means of the latter: Prov. 23:13-14 ("Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell"), Prov. 22:15 RSV ("Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him"), Prov. 20:30 RSV ("Blows that wound cleanse away evil; strokes make clean the innermost parts"), Prov. 13:24 RSV ("He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him"), Prov. 19:19 ("Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying"), Prov. 29:15 ("Thy rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother"), Prov. 26:3 ("A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool's back <children are often foolish--Ed.>"), and Deut. 21:18-21 ("If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son, who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they chastise him, will not give heed to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city...and they shall say to the elders of his city, 'This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard. Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall purge the evil from the midst").

And, then, there are those verses which demean and degrade children by looking upon them as little more than beings to be punished for the misdeeds of others: Ex. 20:5 ("I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me"), Lev. 26:22 ("I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children...."), Hosea 13:16 ("Samaria shall become desolate: for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword; their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up"), and Isa. 13:16-18 ("Their infants will be dashed in pieces before their eyes; their houses will be plundered and their wives ravished.... Their bows will slaughter the young men; they will have no mercy on the first of the womb; their eyes will not pity children").
.................................................. .................................................
This information was sourced online.
If you find a POSSIBLE mistake... oh well...
Blame the original author..dun ask me who that was.
__________________________________________________

Cheers
RazZ

Tiassa

01-01-02, 03:18 PM

No, you claim a contradiction, therefore the onus is on you to prove that there is one.
It isn't sufficient to create the impression of a contradiction. The original contradiction was posted by Teg, and I don't know what you want toward proof of the appearance of contradiction if two sentences that create opposing states won't do it. I'd say the presence of the words is the proof of the contradiction. If you think that Teg or I or anyone else at this forum is reading those sentences incorrectly--the essence of your assertion, I believe--then the onus is quite yours.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

tony1

01-01-02, 03:35 PM

*Originally posted by razz
This is just the tip of the iceberg, I have about 60 pages of POSSIBLE mistakes within the bible.
Wonder what else was POSSIBLY mistaken.*

I've got all the issues of Biblical Errancy.
Plus, did you know that the first list of "boo-boos" was published almost 1600 years ago, and contained upwards of 3000 items?
How many do you have in your 60 pages?

*What color was the robe
scarlet
purple*

What color is a school bus, yellow or orange?

* When was the robe put on Jesus? *

3:46 pm

*This information was sourced online.
If you find a POSSIBLE mistake... oh well...
Blame the original author..dun ask me who that was.*

You were on a roll until you wrote that.

It's God or you.
Who's right and who's wrong?

You pointed out some errors.
Been there, done that.
Seen it, did it, got the Tshirt.

I still have to choose between God and you.
I bet you make more mistakes than he does.

Besides, what's the big deal about errors in the Bible, anyway?
In the Bible, God's word is always described as spoken.
Perhaps you've noticed that the Bible is written.

We know that everything that is written in the Bible isn't God's spoken word, anyway.
Satan is in there speaking, along with quite a pile of demons and dozens of different people.
They aren't all God.

I couldn't help but notice how you put the word "possible" into capital letters so I wouldn't miss how you wanted me to see it.
There are POSSIBLE errors in every single thing you think.
How can you still think?

*Originally posted by tiassa
I don't know what you want toward proof of the appearance of contradiction if two sentences that create opposing states won't do it.*

That's just it.
You claim a contradiction, and then claim that the appearance of a contradiction establishes it.

Well, no.
The appearance of a contradiction proves the existence of the appearance.
It takes some actual logic to demonstrate an actual contradiction.

*I'd say the presence of the words is the proof of the contradiction.*

That's a new low even for you.
I'd say the presence of those words is the proof that everything you say is contradictory.

Tiassa

01-01-02, 04:55 PM

The appearance of a contradiction proves the existence of the appearance. And, if you'll note the topic post, it is that appearance of contradiction that we are attempting to resolve. Honestly, Tony1, why won't you put even the slightest effort into establishing the validity of what you assert? All you have to do is show the larger text and back up your assertion that most "contradictions" are a result of failing to read what is actually written, and you won't even do that. You think somehow that your assertion means that no context is required, but it is that larger text that demonstrates the context.

Why make the assertion if you're not prepared to back it up?

The appearance of contradiction offered establishes itself by representing two contradictory states, one in which the sons will not, and one in which the sons will bear the iniquities of the fathers. If the appearance of contradiction is resolved by a different perspective on the text, please offer it instead of just tell us the idea exists.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Tiassa

01-01-02, 05:04 PM

I take visiting iniquity to mean that the Lord shall cause the sons to bear that iniquity, by visiting iniquity upon them.

http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=visit (5)a. To afflict or assail: A plague visited the village.
b. To inflict punishment on or for; avenge: The sins of the ancestors were visited on their descendants. (American Heritage Dictionary)

5: impose something unpleasant: "The principal visited his rage on the students" [syn: inflict, bring down, impose] (WorldNet 1.6/Princeton)Thus the appearance of contradiction arises from two contradictory states represented in the Bible,

* That the sons shall not bear the iniquities of the fathers ... (Ezekiel)
* That the sons shall bear the iniquities of the fathers, by proxy of the Lord's will when he visits the iniquity upon the fourth and fifth generations. (Exodus)

Are we at least on the same page toward visit, if nothing else?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

blonde_cupid

01-01-02, 07:37 PM

tiassa,

***Thus the appearance of contradiction arises from two contradictory states represented in the Bible,

* That the sons shall not bear the iniquities of the fathers ... (Ezekiel)
* That the sons shall bear the iniquities of the fathers, by proxy of the Lord's will when he visits the iniquity upon the fourth and fifth generations. (Exodus)

Are we at least on the same page toward visit, if nothing else?***

"Visiting iniquities" probably isn't the heart of the difficulty.

More likely - What of the "appearance" of contradiction and what of God's* choices in this matter?

I think I spoke to the appearance of contradiction before.
If one looks at the respective stages of development in man's biblical relationship with God* then the appearance of contradiction disappears when one considers the degree of maturation in the relationship within the context and chronology of Exodus vs Ezekiel.

Exodus came first. At that time, analogously, man was being educated on how to handle the vehicle of life in order to get from point A to point B safely. Since the relationship between man and God* was still in its infancy, the fathers were the first to be taught with the expectation that they would teach their children well. It would take generations for man's relationship with God* to mature to a point where sons would be able to get behind the wheel themselves. In the meantime, sons remained passengers along for the ride with their fathers. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the fathers to handle their vehicles properly in order to avoid a fatal crash because it would not only cause the fathers to lose their lives - it would also cause their passengers, their sons, to lose their lives.

Ezekiel came about 1800 years after Exodus. Man's relationship with God* had matured to a point where the sons, who had been sufficiently educated over time, were given license to handle their own vehicles themselves. They were no longer dependent on their fathers' choices for survival.

What, specifically, is it that you would like to discuss concerning God's* choices in this matter?

blonde_cupid

01-01-02, 09:49 PM

tiassa,

As to your second set of questions/assertions:

***Does this running revision of the human relationship with God imply that all is not known from the outset? What need has God of revision...***

First. It's not necessarily a revision. When any good and lasting relationship is "developed" it is most likely brought to a fuller, greater or better state in a gradual manner. As such, change is known to be an inherent part of such a "developing" relationship.

***Mind you, your personal faith might explain how it is that God could need to go back and fix something about the way things are put together, but that's part of the problem...***

On a similar note, your personal faith might explain why you see it as God* going back to "fix" something, insisting that God* must have made a mistake, rather than putting things into the context of the gradual disclosure which is inherent in the development of meaningful relationships.

***No interpretation of God can escape the facts that the Lord says one thing in one verse and another in another, and that the two statements equal opposing states.***

You assert that your interpretation of "opposing states" is fact? Then, why are we having this discussion?

***Revision works, but I didn't think God made mistakes...***

If you meant to say that you think God* doesn't make mistakes, then I think that I would agree with you. However, if you insist on insisting that your interpretation is fact, then I can see how you would also insist on concluding that God* made mistakes.

I'm not insisting that I know all the facts. I'm not insisting that I understand everything that God* does. I'm not even insisting that I agree with everything that God* does (because in order to do that I would first have to insist that I understand everything that God* does). However, I do believe in God* and like you apparently used to think, I still don't think that God* makes mistakes. To me, God* making mistakes is an oxymoron. Now, if you want to try and convince me that God* does make mistakes, rendering the God* that I believe in non-existant, then I am open to listening. However, it would be appreciated if you would not take the position that an interpretation of yours is fact. Thanks.

***...and furthermore, what does this say of Biblical laws pertaining to homosexuality, diet, tattoos, haircuts, &c? That, perhaps, they are outdated laws from an earlier period in the development of the human relationship with God? What does this need for revision say of the Hebrew laws that Christ did not address? You know, the ones Paul got to, eventually? Did you go to the edge of town for the required period after your last bowel movement? It isn't that the idea isn't valid, Cupid, but that it invites a host of considerations toward the larger image of faith.***

You are correct here when you say, "It isn't that the idea isn't valid" because it is, rendering your interpretation as just that... your interpretation, not fact. As far as other considerations go, if you're open to it, we can discuss them one-by-one if you'd like.

Tiassa

01-01-02, 10:11 PM

"Visiting iniquities" probably isn't the heart of the difficulty.Perhaps not, but I thought it worth exploring per your consideration of that very issue on 12/31.I think I spoke to the appearance of contradiction before. I think you did, indeed. As I recall, part of the issue that remained was that your explanation centered entirely around the choices of the fathers and the sons, and spoke none of God's choice to visit iniquity.Therefore, it was incumbent upon the fathers to handle their vehicles properly in order to avoid a fatal crash because it would not only cause the fathers to lose their lives - it would also cause their passengers, their sons, to lose their lives.My only question regards this is what, then, of the fourth and fifth generations? How many were packed into that Buick? ;)Ezekiel came about 1800 years after Exodus. Man's relationship with God* had matured to a point where the sons, who had been sufficiently educated over time, were given license to handle their own vehicles themselves. They were no longer dependent on their fathers' choices for survival. The only note I intend to make here is that this point is noted for future reference. (It's a curious twist from the idea of God's word being perfect; it implies fallibility and the need for discovery, which does help--by creating an imperfect and limited God--to explain the apperances of contradiction, and the imperfection of the religious system and its resulting faith.)What, specifically, is it that you would like to discuss concerning God's* choices in this matter?I'm curious why discussion of God's choices centers so much around people's decisions. Why is what the Lord does so dependent upon the people? I see no codicil, appendix, footnote, clause, or otherwise indicating that the sons had much of a choice: that is, even if the sons rejected the sins of the fathers, the Lord would still visit those iniquities upon them.

You're onto that untread academic response I hinted at, Cupid. All anyone needs to do now is to show the larger text of the Exodus citation and show what Teg has left out. As a general question, why can nobody do this? Specifically, though, I think you're focusing too greatly on factors not fully introduced to the topic. What's bugging me, to be honest, is that I think this appearance of contradiction can most likely be reasonably refuted--that is, even if I disagree with the refutation, it will hold enough credibility as valid that I have to at least recognize that validity. But I'm not about to go and buld an argument that I disagree with just to resolve this debate. I'm curious why it seems that those who assert the contradiction to be invalid won't just straight out demonstrate it using the texts themselves and offering the perspective that Teg or any of us who see the contradiction are missing. It's honestly feels like you and Tony1 are waiting for us to go out and do the work for you; if there's a straightforward resolution, then all anyone wants is to see it.

And there I see your next post ... I'll get to it later.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

James R

01-01-02, 10:20 PM

tony1,

You ask what the big deal is with errors in the bible. The big deal is this: you continually quote the bible as the source of all truth in scientific and other matters. Yet, as has been shown, the bible contradicts even itself, let alone other documents and sources of knowledge. If there are logical contradictions in the bible, how can it be the source of all truth? If it is shown to be wrong in some respects (which you seem to agree is the case) then why can't it be wrong in other respects?

The fact is: the bible was written by fallible humans, dictated to by God or not. Even IF your God exists, how do we know that the bible is an accurate account of him or his words? It isn't even self-consistent.

tony1

01-01-02, 11:37 PM

*Originally posted by tiassa
And, if you'll note the topic post, it is that appearance of contradiction that we are attempting to resolve.
...
Why make the assertion if you're not prepared to back it up?*

You, as in Teg, and you because you've taken up the torch, asserted the contradiction.
There was no mention of "appearance," only of "error" and "contradiction."

Thus the onus is on you to prove that there is a contradiction.
It is not sufficent to prove the appearance of a contradiction.

*The appearance of contradiction offered establishes itself by representing two contradictory states, one in which the sons will not, and one in which the sons will bear the iniquities of the fathers. If the appearance of contradiction is resolved by a different perspective on the text, please offer it instead of just tell us the idea exists.*

How about you telling me what the idea that supposedly exists is?
You could start by explaining how an apparent contradiction is proof that a real contradiction exists.
You could even try telling me what the contradiction itself is.

So far, you've stated that you see a contradiction.
OK, I'll take your word for that, and I'll even agree that you see a contradiction.

The next step would be for you explain how what you think you see relates to reality.

*Originally posted by James R
You ask what the big deal is with errors in the bible. The big deal is this: you continually quote the bible as the source of all truth in scientific and other matters. Yet, as has been shown, the bible contradicts even itself, let alone other documents and sources of knowledge. If there are logical contradictions in the bible, how can it be the source of all truth?*

That's a good point.
Essentially what it boils down to is this....

1. The Bible, with some alleged errors in it.
2. All other knowledge, with proven, scientifically established, verified error in it.

It seems like a no-brainer, doesn't it?

As for contradiction, it remains to be seen if the Bible contradicts itself.
There is no argument from me that it contradicts myriads of other documents.

However, I can see, but you can't, that those other documents hopelessly contradict each other.
In addition, the authors of those other documents actually write them with the specific intention of contradicting the other documents.

Thus, the entire collection of all other documents is useless.

*If it is shown to be wrong in some respects (which you seem to agree is the case) then why can't it be wrong in other respects?*

You can't be serious.
If your thinking is shown to be wrong in some respects, then why can't it be wrong in other respects?
Since you are using your thinking to evaluate the Bible, how do you know your thinking isn't hopelessly muddled on that issue along with others?

Are you actually convinced that your thinking could be in error on every single point EXCEPT where the Bible is concerned?

*The fact is: the bible was written by fallible humans, dictated to by God or not.*

True, the Bible says as much.

*Even IF your God exists, how do we know that the bible is an accurate account of him or his words? It isn't even self-consistent.*

Even IF you exist, how do we know what you write is an accurate account of you or your words? Your writing isn't even self-consistent, unless of course you're infallible.

Your argument in this case is that you will tolerate no less than 100% accuracy (as defined by you) where the Bible is concerned, but less than 1% accuracy with everything else is just fine.

In essence, you say that 100% accuracy is required to believe one thing, but believing its opposite only requires, say, 0.0001% accuracy.

Your scientific method doesn't even work that way.
There a preponderance of evidence is sufficient.
For some that may be 51-49, for others it may be 99-1, but who demands 100-0.0001, which is impossible anyway because it adds up to more than 100?

In essence you've set yourself up with an impossibility.
If the Bible must be 100, then as scientific evidence increases, it will begin to approach 100, but can never reach it due to the fact that there will always be something else to check.

As time passes, your choice becomes 100-30, or 100-40, and again you're faced with an impossible choice.

Best of luck, you've set yourself up with an impossibility, precisely because of a defect in your thinking which is provably imperfect.
Then, based on that impossibility, you again use your proven defective thinking, to make the wrong choice.

Incidentally, when I am saying that you have defective thinking, it isn't an insult.
You yourself say that you could be wrong, which is an admission that you recognize that your thinking is imperfect.

razz

01-01-02, 11:59 PM

"I contend that we are both atheists, I just believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, then you will know why I dismiss yours."

Have a lovely sun shiney day
cheers
RazZ

blonde_cupid

01-02-02, 12:05 AM

tiassa,

***quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Visiting iniquities" probably isn't the heart of the difficulty.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps not, but I thought it worth exploring per your consideration of that very issue on 12/31.***

Yeah. Thanks. But after reading your response and some other posts of yours, it now appears that wasn't the difficulty after all.

***quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think I spoke to the appearance of contradiction before.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you did, indeed. As I recall, part of the issue that remained was that your explanation centered entirely around the choices of the fathers and the sons, and spoke none of God's choice to visit iniquity.***

Not quite. For example, as I mentioned a few posts ago "... it was incumbent upon the fathers of the Exodus generation to lead by example and it was made clear there would be severe consequences upon their family for generations if the fathers chose the way of unrighteousness."

***quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ezekiel came about 1800 years after Exodus. Man's relationship with God* had matured to a point where the sons, who had been sufficiently educated over time, were given license to handle their own vehicles themselves. They were no longer dependent on their fathers' choices for survival.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The only note I intend to make here is that this point is noted for future reference. (It's a curious twist from the idea of God's word being perfect; it implies fallibility and the need for discovery, which does help--by creating an imperfect and limited God--to explain the apperances of contradiction, and the imperfection of the religious system and its resulting faith.)***

It does imply fallibility and the need for discovery on the part of man, not God*, tiassa. It implies imperfection and limitation on the part of man, not God*, tiassa. What a curious twist, indeed.

***quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What, specifically, is it that you would like to discuss concerning God's* choices in this matter?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm curious why discussion of God's choices centers so much around people's decisions. Why is what the Lord does so dependent upon the people?***

This sounds like another twist on which came first, the chicken or the egg? God's* choices concerning man were made first. They were made first and then they were made known to the people. Once presented, it is up to the person to decide their own fate.

***I see no codicil, appendix, footnote, clause, or otherwise indicating that the sons had much of a choice: that is, even if the sons rejected the sins of the fathers, the Lord would still visit those iniquities upon them.***

Did you read Ezekiel 18 in full which I posted?

In Exodus, the sons did not know enough to reject sin. It was incumbent upon their fathers to teach them. By the time of Ezekiel, the sons knew enough to make their own choices and were held accountable for their own actions.

***All anyone needs to do now is to show the larger text of the Exodus citation and show what Teg has left out. As a general question, why can nobody do this?***

At this point, other than possibly posting God's* promise of mercy down to the thousandth generation on the children of those who love God* and keep the commandments, I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't see how the larger text of Exodus 20 changes much with respect to the alleged contradiction between Ex 20:5 vs Ez 18:20. But, since you do, I'd suggest that you be the one to demonstrate it.

***Specifically, though, I think you're focusing too greatly on factors not fully introduced to the topic.***

I was focusing on one particular contradiction which was brought up in this thread, specifically, Ex 20:5 vs Ez 18:20, by discussing the passages in the context of a bigger picture.

***What's bugging me, to be honest, is that I think this appearance of contradiction can most likely be reasonably refuted--that is, even if I disagree with the refutation, it will hold enough credibility as valid that I have to at least recognize that validity.***

It has been reasonably refuted and you've already recognized its validity, or at least hinted at it, at least once... "It isn't that the idea isn't valid, Cupid..."

***But I'm not about to go and buld an argument that I disagree with just to resolve this debate. I'm curious why it seems that those who assert the contradiction to be invalid won't just straight out demonstrate it using the texts themselves and offering the perspective that Teg or any of us who see the contradiction are missing.***

Such a perspective has already been offered with respect to Ex 20:5 vs Ez 18:20. You've seen it, you've acknowledged its validity, and now you deny it?

***It's honestly feels like you and Tony1 are waiting for us to go out and do the work for you;***

Get over yourself, will you please? If you've got something better to offer, just do it.

***if there's a straightforward resolution, then all anyone wants is to see it.***

Yeah. I'd like to see at least one debate in this forum get resolved in a straightforward manner. Why don't you take a crack at it?

Tiassa

01-02-02, 12:18 AM

Thus the onus is on you to prove that there is a contradiction.
It is not sufficent to prove the appearance of a contradiction.It has been pointed out a few times that the two passages in question represent contradictory states: one in which the sons shall bear the iniquities of the fathers, and one in which they shall not.

Now, what is so hard to grasp about that? It's shown in the topic citations, and explained several times.

What I think it might be is that you're not capable of answering the issue; or perhaps you'd like to explain why once again you have plenty to say but nothing to contribute to the progress of the topic.

If the black and white words of the Bible and the conventionally accepted lexicon and grammar of the prevailing vernacular are not sufficient proof for you that contradictory states are represented, then I don't know what else you need. For starters, it's the Bible. I didn't realize there was such a grey zone about what it says as you've established. There's also the factor of language: which one would suit you best? But I figure since we're reading an English translation of the Bible, that should be the language we consider in our debate. The nearest I can figure here is that you're not perceiving the words the same as I do. While that's obvious, I'm coincidentally stumped as to what the problem is. What words in the topic citation do you not understand?How about you telling me what the idea that supposedly exists is?
You could start by explaining how an apparent contradiction is proof that a real contradiction exists.
You could even try telling me what the contradiction itself is.I'll number these, so it's easier for you to follow:

1. Only you know what that idea is. If you were actually following the discussion instead of looking for diversions, you might have noticed that the idea in question is the one that somehow equates to you that two sentences representing contradictory states don't show a contradiction. For instance, I wrote, If the appearance of contradiction is resolved by a different perspective on the text, please offer it instead of just tell us the idea exists. Would you like me to try that again in simple language? If you think a different perspective on the text will resolve the appearance of contradiction, then tell us what that perspective is; don't just tell us it exists, try explaining it. Tell us, Tony1, why is it that by the time you demonstrate that you have a clue what the topic at hand is it's twenty posts later and you're still not willing to give it serious consideration? Why do your responses so often indicate that you simply don't understand what you're responding to?

2. Well, as presented in the topic post, the two passages are contradictory. Whether you want to call it a contradiction or the appearance thereof is actually irrelevant; the only distinction comes when you assert that the contradiction cited is not a contradiction. Very well, there still exists the appearance of a contradiction to be resolved. The easiest way for you to communicate why that appearance is false is to tell us why the two passages that represent contradictory states do not actually represent contradictory states. I find it quite the sad testament to the nature of faith that such a simple answer has either not occurred to you or else has occurred to you and been determined to be unworthy of your consideration.

3. If you're suggesting that nobody has pointed out what the contradiction is, then I seriously find myself doubting your reading skills."The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." -- Ezekiel 18:20
Meaning: Children will not be responsible for the actions of their parents.
"I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation..." -- Exodus 20:5
Meaning: I your God will place guilt for the actions of the fathers into the 3rd and 4th generation. (Teg to Tony1, 12/29/01)

The appearance of contradiction offered establishes itself by representing two contradictory states, one in which the sons will not, and one in which the sons will bear the iniquities of the fathers. If the appearance of contradiction is resolved by a different perspective on the text, please offer it instead of just tell us the idea exists. (Tiassa to Tony1, 1/1/02)

Thus the appearance of contradiction arises from two contradictory states represented in the Bible,

* That the sons shall not bear the iniquities of the fathers ... (Ezekiel)
* That the sons shall bear the iniquities of the fathers, by proxy of the Lord's will when he visits the iniquity upon the fourth and fifth generations. (Exodus) (Tiassa to Blonde Cupid, 1/1/02)Do you require further clarification, Tony1?

Or are you prepared to address the issue at hand: Can you answer the contradiction presented or not?

:rolleyes:,
Tiassa :cool:

blonde_cupid

01-02-02, 12:49 AM

***I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation [of those who hate me]" -- Exodus 20:5***

Hello? Hello? Hello?

"...unto the third and fourth generation."

"...unto the third and fourth generation."

"...unto the third and fourth generation."

My apologies for being so redundant. But, it seems that it might be necessary in this case.

How long does anyone here think that three or four generations lasts?

More than, say, 1800 years from Exodus to Ezekiel?

Just curious.

Tiassa

01-02-02, 02:40 AM

More than, say, 1800 years from Exodus to Ezekiel?I don't see how that's relevant. Sorry to be so blunt.

Oh, or is it that God was referring to a specific set of guilty? Is that part of the point we're missing? If so, would it not have been easier to post that portion of the text and make that point clear? We could have resolved this topic in one post, then.Not quite. For example, as I mentioned a few posts ago "... it was incumbent upon the fathers of the Exodus generation to lead by example and it was made clear there would be severe consequences upon their family for generations if the fathers chose the way of unrighteousness." Right, and by the will of God. On this point we have no disagreement.It does imply fallibility and the need for discovery on the part of man, not God*, tiassa. It implies imperfection and limitation on the part of man, not God*, tiassa. What a curious twist, indeed. Ah, so it is man that rewrites the terms of his covenant with God? I hadn't realized that Biblical man had the authority in the God-man relationship. In case you hadn't noticed, the change is God's unless we're to discredit the prophet. That is, God says one thing at one time, and another at another. These two things contradict. Now, I have no problem with the progressive relationship 'twixt God and man, but what does this say of God's method? Quite simply, that God needs to continually redefine the relationship 'twixt Himself and His creations because each state of that relationship becomes inadequate. Now my theology doesn't have a problem with this, but most people's hit a brick wall when considering the inadequacy of God. But it was God's will that the relationship should be inadequate and redefined; if God was not prepared for the experimental result, He should not have been in the lab. I hadn't meant to spend this much on this digression until it came up for a topic, but the only problem with the redefined relationship are the ideas of why that relationship needs redefining and what that means in practical application. That, indeed, makes for a curious twist. This sounds like another twist on which came first, the chicken or the egg? God's* choices concerning man were made first. They were made first and then they were made known to the people. Once presented, it is up to the person to decide their own fate.Of course, this is only after Ezekiel. See, that's the whole point of noting the contradiction. By Exodus, those who decide their own fate when presented with the law will be subject to the iniquities of the father because God will visit those iniquities upon them. Aside from your mischaracterization of the issue (was that intentional?) I'm not sure you addressed the point. Part of the contradiction at hand is the idea of why the sons who stand with God would be subject to the iniquities of the fathers. What the fathers teach and the sons decide is irrelevant if God wants the sons to bear the burdens.

What is important about the resolution is that it does not shake the broader paradigm of the faith. The resolution you've offered, while anthropologically sound insofar as any religious idea is anthropologically sound, and while easily conceivable, presents a condition whereby much of the perceived evil that God will regard and judge will result solely from His inadequacy in the relationship--why would God waste the time to fix what wasn't broken?

Now, does God make mistakes?

Obviously not; thus, we can only conclude that the need to redefine the relationship--the sense of growing inadequacy--is specifically by design; in that sense, what was the point of those sons bearing the burdens?In Exodus, the sons did not know enough to reject sin. It was incumbent upon their fathers to teach them. By the time of Ezekiel, the sons knew enough to make their own choices and were held accountable for their own actions.I see nothing in the Exodus citation in question to speak of what the sons would choose; I see nothing of what the sons did or did not know. Specifically, what I see is that the Lord will visit those iniquities upon them, regardless. And why? Jealousy. Because the fathers rejected God, the Lord will take it out on the sons. There's a mafia/golf joke about getting back at or blackballing you, your children, your children's children ... and so forth. It's a cheap line that fills predictable moments in gangster comedies. But it has precedent. The Lord will take it out on you, your children, your children's children, and so forth. And for something your father did.

We recently had an episode in the Seattle area where a five year-old brought a gun to school and killed a little girl. The investigation turned up a frightening story. The boy lived, essentially, in a crack-house. Let your most squalid nightmares run wild on that; the gun was easy enough to obtain, and we need not look farther than the occupants of the house to answer the question of where he learned that guns are a solution. Now this idea I understand. But I don't think that's the sole point of the Exodus part. God wasn't nearly so specific as the refutations of contradiction have been.

If, by Exodus, the Lord guarantees--by His will--this transferrence of method and perspective, then we have no free will, and the whole human endeavor becomes nothing more than a show of grandeur by a cruel and hidden puppeteer.At this point, other than possibly posting God's* promise of mercy down to the thousandth generation on the children of those who love God* and keep the commandments, I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't see how the larger text of Exodus 20 changes much with respect to the alleged contradiction between Ex 20:5 vs Ez 18:20. But, since you do, I'd suggest that you be the one to demonstrate it.That you should deliberately choose that path tells me what it's worth. You have to understand, on this point, since I ride Tony1 about his bowdlerized citations and off-topic responses, and the importance of context as relates such diversions, I feel obliged to invite you over and over again to simply tell us that Teg has the wrong idea about those two citations and show why. If the larger text changes nothing for you, then I'm perfectly happy to sit here and await a proper explanation of the contradiction. You're on your way to one, and please don't think I don't appreciate it. But I want to make sure you know exactly how big a theological can of worms you're opening with this notion of revising the relationship according to the growing body of human knowledge. The result of it becomes vital: we've mentioned things like tattoos, dietary law, and sexuality. It isn't that we necessarily need to undertake these issues presently--sexuality, especially, has a way of coming up--but that we see in the offered resolution a device of flexibility not present in a more relevant (to my life) form of the Christian faith, the activist faith. To use a specific point of illustration: in my political career people have died for being homosexual while the Bible was on the ballot. We can fairly say that we see among the activist-fundamentalist Christianity that lobbies for laws and demands suspension of civil rights a lack of this device of flexibility you've employed. Understand, I'm thrilled to even see it. It's all in what people do with it, then, to be just and not arbitrary; but as a practical application, I can't tell you how foreign an idea this flexibility is to my Christian experience. To steer back to direct relevance, there's a reason I'm hounding on this revising of the human relationship with God. Understanding its dimensions within the Christian endeavor is difficult since it is generally denied. I don't yet understand how it functions for you, so yeah ... there's a reason I press on that issue.It has been reasonably refuted and you've already recognized its validity, or at least hinted at it, at least once... "It isn't that the idea isn't valid, Cupid..." And here's the reason I keep asking about the larger text. I'm sure you'll find the example you're providing is irrelevant, since the validity wasn't relevant as I had pointed out. If you're referring to another time, please point me to it, but I'm pretty damn sure that's what you're citing.Such a perspective has already been offered with respect to Ex 20:5 vs Ez 18:20. You've seen it, you've acknowledged its validity, and now you deny it?Like I said, a can of worms. Big. Huge.Get over yourself, will you please? If you've got something better to offer, just do it. Ah, the last time I pointed out that you have no point, you got upset. What, are you admitting it this time? What is it about your faith that you won't put any effort into it? What, you say it is so and we believe? I know life would be easier that way, Cupid, but you've got to give a little more to justify your position. Like I noted, there's nothing in Exodus about the choices, and if God is willing to guarantee the passing of those sins--to eliminate the free choice to transcend--merely because the inadequacy of the relationship He has designed leads him to doubt the possibility of transcension ... well? It's a pretty stupid drill, then, isn't it?

I mean, Exodus makes it pretty clear that God is willing to make sure that burden of iniquity gets passed along. Now, your offered explanation is fine, except that it cracks the rest of the faith as I mentioned. It's not just the people that are confused about their relationship with God, and it's pretty fair to say that all bets are off if this constant revision of the terms of the relationship is the real and proper way of things. I mean, like I said, it's not that your refutation of the contradiction isn't valid. It just does a whole lot of collateral damage in the meantime.Yeah. I'd like to see at least one debate in this forum get resolved in a straightforward manner. Why don't you take a crack at it?Sure: I agree that the conditions of contradiction exist, and I cannot accept the refutation which, while proper within the condition it attempts to resolve, invites greater and more fundamental questions pertaining to the validity of the very faith. To accept your resolution, Cupid requires a step deeper into the forest of doubt. You raise more difficulties than you resolve.

Straightforward enough?

--Tiassa :cool:

blonde_cupid

01-02-02, 02:52 AM

tiassa,

***Part of the contradiction at hand is the idea of why the sons who stand with God would be subject to the iniquities of the fathers.***

One more time. Sons could not stand with God* at Exodus because they did not know what that meant. It was incumbent upon their fathers teach them.

blonde_cupid

01-02-02, 03:07 AM

tiassa,

I asked: How long does anyone here think that three or four generations lasts?

More than, say, 1800 years from Exodus to Ezekiel?

You respond that you don't see how that's relevant.

Of course, to be blunt, if you can't see the relevance, then you can continue to feign seeing the appearance of a contradiction.

blonde_cupid

01-02-02, 04:31 AM

tiassa,

***I feel obliged to invite you over and over again to simply tell us that Teg has the wrong idea about those two citations and show why.***

Uh. Hello. I've demonstrated why a number of times already.

***If the larger text changes nothing for you, then I'm perfectly happy to sit here and await a proper explanation of the contradiction.***

Hello again. I believe I'm the one who addressed the citations in terms of the larger text.

***You're on your way to one, and please don't think I don't appreciate it. But I want to make sure you know exactly how big a theological can of worms you're opening with this notion of revising the relationship according to the growing body of human knowledge.***

It's on the table, so let's indulge. The difference, I believe, is that you see God's* bringing man forth in God's* way as a form of inadequacy on the part of God* and I don't.

***The result of it becomes vital: we've mentioned things like tattoos, dietary law, and sexuality. It isn't that we necessarily need to undertake these issues presently--sexuality, especially, has a way of coming up--but that we see in the offered resolution a device of flexibility not present in a more relevant (to my life) form of the Christian faith, the activist faith. To use a specific point of illustration: in my political career people have died for being homosexual while the Bible was on the ballot. We can fairly say that we see among the activist-fundamentalist Christianity that lobbies for laws and demands suspension of civil rights a lack of this device of flexibility you've employed. Understand, I'm thrilled to even see it. It's all in what people do with it, then, to be just and not arbitrary; but as a practical application, I can't tell you how foreign an idea this flexibility is to my Christian experience. To steer back to direct relevance, there's a reason I'm hounding on this revising of the human relationship with God. Understanding its dimensions within the Christian endeavor is difficult since it is generally denied. I don't yet understand how it functions for you, so yeah ... there's a reason I press on that issue.***

So? What do you want to know about how it functions for me?

***Ah, the last time I pointed out that you have no point, you got upset. What, are you admitting it this time? What is it about your faith that you won't put any effort into it?***

First of all, I was unaware that it was your opinion that I had no point in this matter. If that's really how you feel then it's pretty sad, the amount of time and energy you're spending discussing no point.

Secondly, the last time? I'm pretty sure what it is you're getting at here and if you want to go there you're on your own. You assume much but know next to nothing about me, my faith or the effort I put into it.

***What, you say it is so and we believe? I know life would be easier that way, Cupid, but you've got to give a little more to justify your position.***

Oh, please. This, from one who compares "part" of one out-of-context verse to "part" of another out-of-context verse and declares, as fact, that they are opposing states?

***Like I noted, there's nothing in Exodus about the choices***

There's nothing in Exodus about what choices? Man is being educated about the choices in Exodus.

***... and if God is willing to guarantee the passing of those sins--to eliminate the free choice to transcend-***

As far as I can see, there was no guarantee that sins would pass unless the father actually sinned. The objective was, I believe, to educate man as to the choices and those who were not yet educated as to the choices were not in a position to exercise free choice.

***-merely because the inadequacy of the relationship He has designed leads him to doubt the possibility of transcension ...***

By what authority do you declare the relationship to be "inadequate"?

By what authority do you judge that God* has been lead to "doubt"?

Tiassa

01-02-02, 08:26 AM

Uh. Hello. I've demonstrated why a number of times already.I don't think you have. You've focused on the Ezekiel half, and written much of choices and inheritence of ideas, but you haven't written of why God chooses to visit that iniquity to the fourth and fifth generations. I can meet you halfway and "get it", but I'm waiting for you to say that God becomes less real and more conceptual before I do, because that's what it equals and though you leave us to assume what you're referring to by not actually mentioning it, we've all learned that it's best not to assume, even sympathetically. Oh, you have written of Exodus, you admitted that the sons don't have much choice. And in Ezekiel they have the choice. There's another way of looking at the contradiction that prevents you from resolving it by focusing solely on the people. There are choices by God afoot, and those are largely being ignored in the mad rush to declare the contradiction resolved, invalid, or anything other than what it is: extant and unanswered.Hello again. I believe I'm the one who addressed the citations in terms of the larger text. Of Ezekiel. Now, what of Exodus ... ah, that's right, the larger text doesn't change anything. Thus, the contradiction still exists.So? What do you want to know about how it functions for me? It merely involves learning the terms of how you employ the device, and whether or not it remains consistent throughout your theological application. It's a longer-term process that tells me about your spiritual integrity, and speaks much toward the value of what you have to offer. For instance, do you remember when I jumped all over KalvinB for his treatment of Godless' list of contradictions? Part of what we argued was the objector's need to separate the topic post into individual parts. This allows one to isolate each contradiction and resolve it without ever making the myriad resolutions function together. Case in point, this device of flexibility you've prescribed: if it consistently is acknowledged in your theological considerations, it's genuine. If it's something you drag out for lack of anything else, we'll know that soon enough when the device fails to reappear in future debates.Oh, please. This, from one who compares "part" of one out-of-context verse to "part" of another out-of-context verse and declares, as fact, that they are opposing states?On the one hand, it's a little late for you to hide behind context. On the one hand, you already said that the larger text of Exodus doesn't change the context, so what's the problem now? Something about argumentative integrity? For instance this, where you've thrown some away by rejecting your own statements. Good show, mate.There's nothing in Exodus about what choices? Man is being educated about the choices in ExodusRight, but whatever the sons decide, the Lord shall still visit that iniquity upon them. Why? That's the point about choices that you've failed to address: it doesn't matter what the sons choose--the Lord will whack them anyway.As far as I can see, there was no guarantee that sins would pass unless the father actually sinned. The objective was, I believe, to educate man as to the choices and those who were not yet educated as to the choices were not in a position to exercise free choice.This is as utterly irrelevant as you can get. Who gives a rat's behind about that? How can the sons bear the iniquity of the sins of the fathers if the fathers don't sin in the first place? Are you prescribing some mythical attribute to the Bible that makes it not the clear and literal truth as written? Fine with me; I'm all for the looser interpretations. But by Exodus, the Lord will intervene and ensure that the sons bear the iniquities. Has nothing to do with "education".By what authority do you declare the relationship to be "inadequate"?

By what authority do you judge that God* has been lead to "doubt"?By what authority? I didn't know I needed special authority to read a Bible:

1. Inadequate: Well? God keeps needing to revise his relationship with humans. It's not like we can rewrite the terms and call it even.

2. Doubt: It seems God is taking from people the possibility of transcending the sins of the fathers; per Exodus, why not give the sons a chance to transcend the past? Why guarantee it?

By what authority? You're almost funny, Cupid.I asked: How long does anyone here think that three or four generations lasts?

More than, say, 1800 years from Exodus to Ezekiel?

You respond that you don't see how that's relevant.

Of course, to be blunt, if you can't see the relevance, then you can continue to feign seeing the appearance of a contradictionSo, then, God was referring to specific sinners? Say, the Haymarket 7 instead of all sinners in general? (As an example)

That's why the 1800 years is irrelevant in comparison to the number of generations. Who was God referring to, then, when he said he would visit iniquity to the fourth and fifth generations?

By what authority? Is that the best you can come up with?

--Tiassa :cool:

blonde_cupid

01-02-02, 08:09 PM

tiassa,

Moving forward, we can debate the why's in more detail if you'd like.

For now, it would be appreciated if we could stay focused on the issue of whether or not there was a contradiction between Exodus 20:5 and Ezekiel 18:20 as presented by Teg. In that light, I'd like to know if you stipulate to the following:

1. In the recording of Exodus 20:5 which took place circa 1200 BC, a relative time period was expressed during which the iniquities of the fathers would be visited upon the sons (3 to 4 generations).

2. The relative time period expressed in Exodus 20:5 had expired by the time of Ezekiel 18:20, circa 600 AD.

3. Therefore, the recording of Ezekiel 18:20 approximately 1800 years after Exodus 20:5, that the sons shall not bear the iniquities of their fathers, reconciles with that which had been recorded in Exodus 20:5.

P.S. - The audience in Exodus 20:5 is the Israelites in the desert of Sinai.

tony1

01-02-02, 09:12 PM

*Originally posted by razz
"I contend that we are both atheists, I just believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, then you will know why I dismiss yours."*

Neat quote.
If it is intended as a reflection of your own thoughts, then I have a simple question.

Since when does believing in 3,999,999,999,999 gods make you an atheist?

*Originally posted by tiassa
It has been pointed out a few times that the two passages in question represent contradictory states: one in which the sons shall bear the iniquities of the fathers, and one in which they shall not.*

That has in fact been pointed out.
However, in one case the sons do not bear the iniquities of their fathers, in the other the Lord visits the iniquities of the fathers on the sons.

In essence, we have two truth tables...

T
sons bear iniquities
F
sons do not bear iniquities.

T
Lord visits iniquities on sons
F
Lord does not visit iniquities on sons

You say the truth tables are identical, producing a contradiction.
I say they are not identical, thus no contradiction.

*The nearest I can figure here is that you're not perceiving the words the same as I do.*

I don't, and they actually are different.

*I wrote, If the appearance of contradiction is resolved by a different perspective on the text, please offer it instead of just tell us the idea exists.*

tiassa, tiassa, tiassa you're still laboring under the illusion that I have to come up with a resolution to the contradiction.
I don't.
You actually have to explain how "visit" and "bear" mean the same thing, even though they look and are different, even considering your earlier point about subjects and objects.

*Well, as presented in the topic post, the two passages are contradictory.*

As presented in the Bible, they're not.

*The easiest way for you to communicate why that appearance is false is to tell us why the two passages that represent contradictory states do not actually represent contradictory states.*

Maybe, but I'm not concerned about the appearance of things.
There is no actual contradiction since the two passages do not represent contradictory states, even tho you might repeat that concept in every post.

*If you're suggesting that nobody has pointed out what the contradiction is, then I seriously find myself doubting your reading skills.*

I don't doubt that some case has been elaborately constructed to simulate a contradiction.
That much effort is usuall