For those of you who still think the Bible is not ambigious.

It's up to you, KalvinB

It's up to you. It's a matter of priority and goal.

Consider a Biblical citation. If one cites the Bible as their interpretation of history, that's certainly fine, though people might ask for corroboration; if one cites the Bible for a moral standard and leaves it without content, we can only assume that the citation, in its proper context, speaks for the poster who offers no other commentary.

Let's say we're discussing physics. I tell you an event is impossible because of earth's gravitational accelleration and the terminal velocity of the object in motion. In order to "prove" it to you, and move onto the next point, is the record of physical experimentation and principle suitable? Or should I build a website so you can watch the QT of me dropping objects off tall buildings?

In terms of Biblical contradictions: for the time being, the list should suffice. Godless could have, I suppose, gone page by page through the Bible, entered it all onto his computer, made the correllations out of a database, and then scrawled out the list by hand and then scanned that to an image he could post so that you could verify he had done the work himself. Would you have been so upset if he came up with an identical list? It seems to me that your primary complaint at the time was that the list was too big for you to handle.

If we choose the longer process described in the preceding paragraph, then we oblige all of Sciforums' Creationist posters to go out and do the field work before complaining about science. We oblige anyone who favors the Drug War to go out and get high so that they know what they're talking about; we oblige anyone who objects to homosexuality to go out and have gay sex in order to experience the emotions of being a homosexual in modern society.

It really just depends, KalvinB on when you wish to speak with your own voice and when you deem it proper to cite others.

A couple points:

1) Then pick one and go with it. You know, kind of like I pointed out when you were whining at Godless for not posting according to your argumentative standards?

2) Well, we could point out the effort you're putting into complaining about these posts, the substance of which you are averse to addressing.

I'll hold you to this, KalvinB. You've just hamstrung your rhetorical potential, though I admit I wonder if you care.

The best thing for you to do, KalvinB, would probably be to shut up. After all, then you don't have to give it any effort at all. And that's even less effort than it takes to be petulant.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Research as in finding answers. Not as in finding contradictions.

I spent several months examining the LDS religion listening to other people finding answers to objections I'd found on my own and on the web before bringing them up myself. Of the hundreds of objections I'd found I only use about 4 to this day. "The Ancient of Days" "The Return of Blood Sacrifice" and a scriptural (Book of Mormon and Bible) examination of the Temple Ceremony which I gave to someone else and asked not to be given credit to avoid trouble. Another good one is the study on Polygamy. My study on Godhood is probably the best Bible only objection to the LDS religion.

Oddly enough I took it one topic at a time. If I found a contradiction I focused on that one contradiction. I never did any off this cluster bomb crap which seems to be the prefered method on these message boards. I derived my method from the other boards. It's not some wierd concept. It's intelligent debate used by any person of any belief system with half a brain. I don't go up to a Mormon and pelt them with contradictions. I show them one of my top 5. The top five doesn't consist of ANY contradictions. It's pure LDS doctrine that the leaders would rather not talk about.

So yeah, if you want me to respond to a brainless unresearched cluster bomb of contradictions I think the only respectable thing to do is respond in kind with 10-20 pages consisting of 101 condradictions answered which was assembled in no short amount of time.

Or you could just hit Google and find it yourself. If you have objections to the answers I'll talk. But why reinvent the same wheel over and over again?

Ben

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hi All

First KalvinB,

Another post another dodge, whining about wheather or not someone had done the work themselves doesn't change the fact that your bible contradicts itself and you choose to ignore it. Which is fine I guess just understand that now we all see that you infact subscribe to the ideals of a false religion i.e. you can no longer lay claim to any truth in the bible without also accepting that your assertions are irrational, which BTW non-christains (on this board) have always argued, and christains (on this board) have always denied by throwing tantrums and bitching about how little respect is being given to their belief system.

I suggest you address the subject at hand and demonstrate how the bible can be taken as any kind of truth let alone devine truth, or accept that you are deluded and get some help.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"Perhaps only as far as it is translated correctly"

What of the evidence in early manuscripts of the Christian church that reveal translation errors, inconsistencies, and revisions? As you know, early English translations were taken from Greek manuscripts that were painfully hand copied over hundreds of years. Church officers and copyists undoubtedly made numbers of errors, and we know in some cases they were even "revising" the Bible to harmonize with inconvenient and inconsistent doctrinal positions of the church. A little research quickly reveals that early translated manuscripts were quickly revised and edited over the first few centuries of the church's existence.

A paramount example is the Book of Mark. The gospel of Mark, in its earliest recorded form, ends with the discovery of the empty tomb in chapter sixteen. The church later finished the ending but at the hands, of course, of more than one copyist. It resulted in countless variant endings of the Book of Mark. The current version is simply the version that ultimately found acceptance. So what we have, then, is the Word River of God that took the path of least resistance down the Mountain of Humanity.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

To began a thread with a large and fascinating post of the inconsistencies of this at-last-arrived-upon manuscript, passed through the minds and hands of copyists, church officers, and the common people (all edited and revised according to their cares and beliefs) then bound in fine leather, edges gilded and taught to young children - is a little silly. So "the Bible" you find ambiguous, inconsistent, and specious is our version of it. The faithful, no doubt, take what good and understanding they can from it. Those who do not profess a need for faith take little from it but a chord of delightful dissonance.

While KalvinB talks about his research of the LDS faith, he may remember that they accept the Bible "as far as it is translated correctly" and use the Holy Book in companionship with the Book of Mormon, a record produced by their first prophet, Joseph Smith.
Perhaps the reason for this is an acknowledgement of those fascinating inconsistencies brought about - and boldly defended -by the church of the faithful.

 

Well, KalvinB ...

... perhaps you shouldn't waste your precious time on us intellectual gnats, then.

I mean, for what reason did you throw that initial temper-tantrum at Godless? Would it not have been better for someone of your superior intellect to simply move on? Is it just your petty pride that motivates you to put that much effort into whining when you don't want to put it into the issues at hand?

You seem to compare the perceived inferiority of people to yourself: stuff it. The arrogance undertaken by those devoid of the most minimal of compassions--to understand something of the ways of various people--really does tarnish the image of yourself you try to present. Unless, of course, you're trying to play yourself off as a petulant blowhard.

For the amount of whining you've put in, you could have answered all of those contradictions by now.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If it's such a trial for you to endure the patronage here, then shop elsewhere. Seriously: you don't want to debate people, you seem to want to tell them how it is.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Perhaps only "as far as it is translated correctly"

What of the evidence in early manuscripts of the Christian church that reveal translation errors, inconsistencies, and revisions? As you know, early English translations were taken from Greek manuscripts that were painfully hand copied over hundreds of years. Church officers and copyists undoubtedly made numbers of errors, and we know in some cases they were even "revising" the Bible to harmonize with inconvenient and inconsistent doctrinal positions of the church. A little research quickly reveals that early translated manuscripts were quickly revised and edited over the first few centuries of the church's existence.

A paramount example is the Book of Mark. The gospel of Mark, in its earliest recorded form, ends with the discovery of the empty tomb in chapter sixteen. The church later finished the ending but at the hands, of course, of more than one copyist. It resulted in countless variant endings of the Book of Mark. The current version is simply the version that ultimately found acceptance. So what we have, then, is the Word River of God that took the path of least resistance down the Mountain of Humanity.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

To began a thread with a large and fascinating post of the inconsistencies of this at-last-arrived-upon manuscript, passed through the minds and hands of copyists, church officers, and the common people (all edited and revised according to their cares and beliefs) then bound in fine leather, edges gilded and taught to young children - is a little silly. So "the Bible" you find ambiguous, inconsistent, and specious is our version of it. The faithful, no doubt, take what good and understanding they can from it. Those who do not profess a need for faith take little from it but a chord of delightful dissonance.

While KalvinB talks about his research of the LDS faith, he may remember that they accept the Bible "as far as it is translated correctly" and use the Holy Book in companionship with the Book of Mormon, a record produced by their first prophet, Joseph Smith. Perhaps the reason for this is an acknowledgement of those fascinating inconsistencies brought about - and boldly defended - by the church of the faithful.

 

Tiassa

I wasnt Criticizing...I was merely stating how I feel everyone else was acting in the other threads.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

"as far as it's translated correctly" is a phrase used to justify lying in the name of God.

There's nothing right about it. I'm not going to trust some old guy who calls himself a prophet but doesn't prophecy to tell me what the Bible "really" says. I've seen the JS Translation of the Bible. I have a book with all the corrections and revisions added along with the original text. What a joke. He couldn't have done worse if he hadn't tried to write in the KJ style. I've read the "Lost Books of the Bible." I don't think it's a coincidence that the Book of Mormon and LBB read the same way. The Gospel of Buddha was written quite well. I didn't find myself gagging on the words as I read it.

If the Bible is not 100% accurate then by it's own laws found in the OT it is to be destroyed. I've said that since I've started. My premise was that the Bible doesn't contradict itself doctrinally. I've yet to be disappointed. Every one of my 333 pages of studies go neatly together.

The original manuscripts you talk about...where are they? If they're on-line tranlated into english I'll copy them to my web-site. I'd like to do a comparison myself. The only comparison I've done is LDS vs Methodist vs Lutheran hymns which was interesting as well.

"contradictions"

I have no problem going over alledged contradictions. I think I've been clear about that. I just don't appreciate being cluster bombed. Pick one, find the answer and post your objection to it. Show at least a little bit of integrity.

I'm swamped with work as it is. I don't need to do yours as well.

Ben

 

Uhmmm ...

Tony1

Quote Tony1
*GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created. *

This "difficulty" is created by a simple inability to read.
Ge. 1 is part of the first creation account.
Ge. 2:4 begins the second creation account."

Why are there two creation accounts? Which is the correct version?

Take care

 

"And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil."

In the first one trees were created. In the second more elaborate account of creation it explains where the trees grew.

It's really not that hard. God apparently designed the garden after he made Adam using things he had created earlier.

There are only two different accounts if you don't understand english. Both are correct. One is just more informative than the other.

Ben

 

*Originally posted by Rambler
christains come back saying what contradictions WELL HELLO!!!!!! THERES A WHOLE FREAKIN PAGE WORTH AND ALL YOU GOD BOTHER"S ARE AVOIDING THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED!!!!!!!!!!! *

What contradictions?
If you don't understand what's being said, that doesn't make it a contradiction for me, just for you.

*Just proves Tiassa's assertion that your faith is gained by the sacrifice of the intellect*

You don't understand, so we lack intellect?

*Originally posted by Stretch
Why are there two creation accounts? Which is the correct version? *

There aren't 2 accounts, there are three.
And they are all correct, merely written from three different perspectives.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
(Genesis 1:1, KJV).

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
(Genesis 2:4, KJV).

This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
(Genesis 5:1, KJV).

First God, then the heavens and the earth, then Adam.
Three perspectives.

 

Wrong, Tony1, but what else do we really expect from you?

You're so determined to avoid looking at the actual issues in favor of mounting a challenge to triumph over that you've demonstrated the point.

Where you lack intellect is in your faith decision to reject what is known, verifiable, or potential, in exchange for a definitive, closed-minded idea of what the Universe looks like. On most practical levels of life, this is no less acceptable than anyone else's decisions made on faith. But what is perhaps most ridiculous of the Christian faith is its sweeping self-assuredness, declarations of supremacy, and the utterly bemusing characteristic of excepting one's own vision of the Universe from the scrutiny one applies elsewhere.

Your declarations for the triumph of religion over science finds its dubious merit in pointing out the unfinished riddles of science; it is easy to forget that life is a learning experience on both the individual and communal level when one operates by the faith assumption that learning is a finite enterprise--we are, therefore, prepared for the fact that we will hear Christian absurdities daily.

It's like that question you steadfastly refuse to answer: Many Christians have found a place for learning among their faith, so why can't you?

Regarding the conflicting accounts of Genesis: here we see KalvinB and Tony1 with different interpretations--which one of you is going to Hell for being unfaithful to the true God?

Furthermore, and I'll read it a hundred times more if you really think it will help, why do I recall that in one "creation story", man is made first and then the animals (Genesis 2), and in the other it is the other way around (Genesis 1)? They don't sound quite the same to me.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

www.dogchurch.com

"Welcome to this sacred place in cyberspace named after a little old dog with cataracts, who barked sideways at strangers, because he couldn't see where they were. We humans relate to God in the same way, making noise in God's general direction, and expecting a reward for doing so. Hence our creed:
We can't be right about everything we believe. Thank God,
we don't have to be!"

I don't even remember how I found that site but that quote is quite good.

I don't think it's possible to know the truth but one should never stop looking.

Ben

 

To continue on topic...

I've read through the original list in the first post. And though I'm definitely not a Bible scholar, it seems to me there are still a bunch of inconsistencies that cannot be dismissed easily as "inability to read" (to recall Tony's favorite retort.)

Take, for example, this one:

Things like that deal with concrete numbers, so I imagine they would be pretty hard for a literalist to excuse. Wouldn't they?

 

Genesis 11:26 (not 16)
And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

Genesis 11:32
And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran.

Genesis 12:4
So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.

Who says Terah was dead at the time Abraham left? Terah was 145 when Abraham left. 60 years later Terah died.

I don't see the problem. I think the person who thought it was a contradiction assumed a sigular flow from the end of Genesis 11 when Terah died to chapter 12 when there's no reason to assume that is the case. It would make little story sense to put in "oh by the way, Terah died" in the middle of the completely unrelated story of chapter 12. Chapter 11 was dedicated to the life of Terah. 12 moves on to Abraham with no regard to the timeline of Terah.

Ben

 

Ben,

Ok, I see how you could interpret it like that.

Here's another one (and this time I actually checked the verses and it appears to hold):

 

*Originally posted by tiassa
Where you lack intellect is in your faith decision to reject what is known, verifiable, or potential, in exchange for a definitive, closed-minded idea of what the Universe looks like.*

So far, I haven't rejected anything that is known or verifiable.

What I have rejected is claptrap like yours, and fanciful theorizing by people who, even in school, were demonstrably inferior in mental abilities.

*Christian faith is its sweeping self-assuredness, declarations of supremacy, and the utterly bemusing characteristic of excepting one's own vision of the Universe from the scrutiny one applies elsewhere.*

That's the beauty of being right.
It is the advantage one derives from having answers where everyone else is drowning in questions.

*Your declarations for the triumph of religion over science finds its dubious merit in pointing out the unfinished riddles of science;*

Who would want to live their life by a collection of unfinished riddles?

*it is easy to forget that life is a learning experience
...
Regarding the conflicting accounts of Genesis: here we see KalvinB and Tony1 with different interpretations--which one of you is going to Hell for being unfaithful to the true God?*

Life is a learning experience.
Not everyone notices that there are three creation accounts.

*Furthermore, and I'll read it a hundred times more if you really think it will help, why do I recall that in one "creation story", man is made first and then the animals (Genesis 2), and in the other it is the other way around (Genesis 1)? They don't sound quite the same to me.*

What of it?
The creation of animals is ongoing.
Note the imperfect tense used to describe the creation of animals.

*Originally posted by Bambi
"GE 11:16 Terah was 70 years old when his son Abram was born.
GE 11:32 Terah was 205 years old when he died (making Abram 135 at the time).
GE 12:4, AC 7:4 Abram was 75 when he left Haran. This was after Terah died. Thus, Terah could have been no more than 145 when he died; or Abram was only 75 years old after he had lived 135 years. "

Things like that deal with concrete numbers, so I imagine they would be pretty hard for a literalist to excuse. Wouldn't they?*

They might.
Except that when Abram left Haran, he didn't arrive at his destination the next day.

The whole point of the so-called "contradiction" is the avoidance of quoting Acts 7:4.

Then came he out of the land of the Chaldaeans, and dwelt in Charran: and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell.
(Acts 7:4, KJV).

Note the reference to "into this land."
"This" land is somewhat removed from "that" land, i.e. Haran.

*Here's another one (and this time I actually checked the verses and it appears to hold):

"GE 49:2-28 The fathers of the twelve tribes of Israel are: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Zebulun, Issachar, Dan, Gad, Asher, Naphtali, Joseph, and Benjamin.
RE 7:4-8 (Leaves out the tribe of Dan, but adds Manasseh.) "*

The tribe of Dan was left out on purpose...

So Benhadad hearkened unto king Asa, and sent the captains of the hosts which he had against the cities of Israel, and smote Ijon, and Dan, and Abelbethmaachah, and all Cinneroth, with all the land of Naphtali.
(1 Kings 15:20, KJV).

Dan was smitten.

 

Tony,

But so was Naphtali, according to your quote.

 

the "land" of Naphtali

 

Mannaseh was one of the twelve tribes. I found a site

http://www.bcbsr.com/books/rev7.html

"Why was Dan left out? Perhaps one could draw a parallel with the twelve apostles. One was apostate - Judas - and replace by Paul, in my opinion, although the other apostles tried to replace him with a man of their own chosing. Perhaps Dan represents the apostate Christians, who will not be reckoned among the redeemed. "

Makes sense considering the following

"And the children of Dan set up the graven image: and Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Manasseh, he and his sons were priests to the tribe of Dan until the day of the captivity of the land.
And they set them up Micah's graven image, which he made, all the time that the house of God was in Shiloh."

And another site

http://www.ptm.org/uni/QandA/0021/Tribes.htm

"In Revelation 7 Dan is omitted, Levi included, and Manasseh is mentioned with Joseph (but not Ephraim). Explanation – Revelation could be commenting on the fact that Dan led Israel as the first tribe to go into idolatry, as well as the fact that Dan was unique in taking their inheritance by force. Levi may once again be included as their role as priests was over, given the high priesthood of Jesus Christ (see Hebrews), and Joseph may have been mentioned instead of Ephraim as the two names (Joseph and Ephraim) had become interchangeable (Jacob put Ephraim ahead of Manasseh when he blessed them, even though Manasseh was the firstborn. See Genesis 48:13-14 and verse 20.) Manasseh was never considered to be one and the same as Joseph as Ephraim was."

Ben