101 CLEARED UP "Contradictions" in the Bible = Paradoxes

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by MarcAC, Mar 30, 2005.

  1. MarcAC Curious Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,042
    Paradoxes.
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2005
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,442
    Marc, the link doesn't work.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. MarcAC Curious Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,042
    Thanks for the alert water.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Silas asimovbot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,116
    Marc, I draw your attention, somewhat facetiously, to the fact that the word "Paradox" does not appear in that particular encomium. When they deal with contradictions, they say "contradictions" - thus employing the English language correctly!

    Since the particular apologia used allows for human fallibility, I'm quite willing to go along with a lot of what they say. Yes, there were copyists errors, and yes sometimes there was rounding up or down of individual numbers. You don't need all-reason-rejecting faith to understand those kinds of contradictions in the Bible.

    There are too many contradictions to go through quickly, but I must say I am quite impressed. They do not use illogical or irrational means to resolve the contradictions (given that they are allowed to mention error on the part of copyists etc), the kind of normal apologetic method where even one method of resolution would contradict another, and the usual inability to see the beam in their own eye.

    If I were you, I'd give them another careful read and learn from their thinking and methodology.

    Once again I'd like to put on record my view that for a Muslim to have gone through the Bible to find contradictions for the purpose of aggrandising Islam and the Qu'ran by comparison, is invidious and should never have happened. It is disrespectful of a far more venerable piece of work, that can stand on its own two feet in its reflection of ancient (human, please note!) greatness.
     
  8. MarcAC Curious Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,042
    You have yet to demonstrate how I have violated any definitions. The fact that there are possible solutions highlights the fact that these apparent contradictions by definition, may be regarded as paradoxes. The English language is not the problem; it is the understanding of the relationship between the relevant concepts. Did you read the definitions I posted on the related thread?
    Brother Silas, nowhere did I deny such possibilities in any of my posts. Please don't be going with propoganda like TheRockHeadedMoron.
    Laugh and a half. I would advise you to give them a thorough read and look back at my posts because the same solutions/explanations proposed by me are those proposed by them.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. §outh§tar is feeling caustic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,832
    Not another 101 "this might be a solution", "the most likely answer", "it probably just means", "it would seem", "it would appear" list of 'solved' contradictions.

    So much for being solvable 'paradoxes'. *Yawn*

    Thanks for the thread MarcAc. I liked it as I am sure SnakeLord will.

    How convenient.
     
  10. Throckmorton Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    89
    Hi MarcAC,

    "TheRockHeadedMoron."

    You have me confused with your mother.

    "The fact that there are possible solutions highlights the fact that these apparent contradictions by definition, may be regarded as paradoxes."

    Your "possible solutions" involve assuming that the Bible says things that it doesn't say.

    "Satan rose up against Israel by inticing David to count Israel"-1Chronicles 21:1

    "The wrath of Yahweh was kindled against Irsael again, and he incited David against them saying, "God count Israel and Judah!".-2Samuel 24:1

    Given that you have been making great claims about "understanding the Bible as a whole" how do you explain this obvious contradiction? Can you point to a portion of the Bible that resolves it?
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2005
  11. Silas asimovbot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,116
    See, their argument about if God incited David or if Satan incited David boils down to, God is the prime mover, and one author records his direct action and the other records the results of his indirect action, and there's no real contradiction. And I have to say I agree! There really is no difficulty about that particular conundrum. This is not what I would call a significant problem within the Bible, at least not compared with the direct conflict of Genesis 1-2 with the evidence of scientific discovery. That's why I've not argued about that. I was arguing before about a direct contradiction in the genealogy of Jesus, which I never accepted was Mary's genealogy because it simply doesn't say so. But their argument in favour of Luke's list being Mary's genealogy while not being compelling (without further study on my part), certainly has merit. I'm willing to admit I may have been wrong about that.

    I'm afraid that by continuing to argue about the Kings/Chronicles discrepancies, people are just playing into the hands of the originator of the 101 Contradictions who clearly had a decidedly anti-rationality agenda of his own.

    MarcAC, Throckmorton is an intelligent new poster whom you are denigrating and insulting for no real reason other than that s/he has argued against you very effectively.

    The solutions may be the same after considerable reading, though I personally don't notice the impulse to deny ones own rationality in what they say compared to what you have said, and you'll notice that they don't spend half their time insulting the people they are arguing against.

    I did. I accept that you mean paradox in the literary sense. But know your audience. This is sciforums, people here like to debate using logic (as opposed to mere opinion), and so paradox has a very specific meaning here which it might not do in a more arts-related forum. The subject is dropped as far as I'm concerned.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2005
  12. MarcAC Curious Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,042
    I take this to be a conditional reflex response. Fair's fair though.
    Done.

    Goodbye Throckmorton
     
  13. MarcAC Curious Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,042
    "Effectively" in your respected opinion. Arguments such as "It is nothing of the sort" and "I did nothing of the sort" or something like that are not effective upon my intellect brother Silas.
    The statements might have been taken as insults but they were merely observations. I'm sure the proponent of the 101 contradictions may very well feel insulted by some of the comments (observations) posted at the end of document. I assume, however, that you didn't get that far.
     
  14. MarcAC Curious Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,042
    Of course you can just §imply use your "voice of truth" and §putter the absolute answers to them.
    How profound... It would be good if you would learn the proper usage of apostrophes though.
    Yes, I do admit, you seem to be of a §Similar nature. The quality of your po§tS (as I've seen) are identical and deserve replies of the same quality.
    -
    Well honestly, the Snake's posts usually possess a bit more content but quality is summarily the same.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2005
  15. §outh§tar is feeling caustic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,832
    Yet again no relevant response to any of the comments, save for disparaging and inane remarks.

    Philocrazy and PM were more intelligent. And that says a lot.
     
  16. Throckmorton Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    89
    Hi MarcAC,

    "I take this to be a conditional reflex response."

    You are quite correct and, if I may say so, that was a good assesment of my motivation on your part.

    "Done."

    You have not indicated what part(s) of the Bible explain the Chronicles/Samuel contradiction. You have been quite snotty about the matter but you haven 't come up with the goods that you've frequently claimed are there.

    How about we move on to a, perhaps, more interesting line of discussion?

    It's odd that God caused David to sin and sent an angel of death to destroy 70,000 Israelites for David's sin?

    In Exodus the angel of the plague is called "hammashit" which means "the destroyer". (Exodus 12:23). In 2Samuel the angel of the plague is called "hammal ak hammashit baam".

    The divine justice ("theodicy") in 2Samel 24 isn't the sort that most people consider to be fair? I suppose in some way we expect to be punished by the sins of our leaders though.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2005
  17. Throckmorton Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    89
    Hi MarcAC,

    "Arguments such as "It is nothing of the sort" and "I did nothing of the sort"

    I did not use that as an argument. "I did nothing of the sort" was a simple statement of fact.......you had accused me of something that I hadn't done and I said so.

    Speaking of arguments.....You continue to claim that the Bible explains the Chronicles/2Samuel contradiction yet you haven't any examples of that. Clearly it is you who is unable to make an argument.
     
  18. MarcAC Curious Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,042
    And that §ay§ a lot.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The Voice of Truth §peaketh. All §tatement§ made by §outh§tar will §ay a lot... to their originator.
     
  19. MarcAC Curious Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,042
    I pointed you to the relevant post which it seemed you replied to without reading (or supressed in memory) and then refused to read. The arguments and relevant Bible sections are also referenced in the link posted above. Have fun if you are interested.
    Like the policeman who conducts the relevant tests to assess your state of drunkenness and concludes you are drunk. Then; "I am not drunk" therefore you are not drunk.
    See the justification of my statement Silas? Back to you: you also notice that you continuously repeat yourself just like on the other thread? My reply to this is after the first quote of this post.

    Goodbye Throckmorton.

    I look forward to seeing more posts from you in the future... not on this thread however... I don't have time for games of "blind man".
     
  20. Throckmorton Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    89
    Hi MarcAC,

    "I pointed you to the relevant post which it seemed you replied to without reading (or supressed in memory) and then refused to read."

    You are extremely deluded. You have not pointed to anything in the Bible that explains the contraction. There is nothing in the Bible that says that Samuel and Chronicles mean something besides what they say. Why don't you take your "supressed memory" nonsense and shove it up your ass? If you can show what you claim to be able to show I request you do so or admit that you can't.

    You've got quite an attitude about your assertion but you are unable to provide a shread of evidence to support it. Why can't you be honest about this matter?

    "Then; "I am not drunk" therefore you are not drunk."

    You accused me of something I didn't do. You are being dishonest and acting like a dick as well.

    "I don't have time for games of "blind man".

    Anybody who asks you to support your assertions is blind? Why not stop this nonsense and support your assertion? Provide examples of how the Bible explains the Chronicles/Samuel contradicion or admit that you have none........That's right MarcAC....instead of insults why not support your assertion?.......You've got nothing right MarcAC?

    Your whole "argument" is based on an assertion that the Bible doesn't mean what it says. Do you have any idea how weak your case is?
     
  21. Throckmorton Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    89
    Hi MarcAC,

    In the ""101 contradictions in Bible" thread (-03-26-05, 05:50 PM) you said: "You seem to be advocating that two passages are the Bible; isolate two sentences from the whole paragraph, ignore the rest of the paragraph, and conclude they "contradict"

    I did nothing of the sort. I have not ignored the paragraphs in Chronicles or Samuel. I did not "advocate that two passages are the Bible If you can show that I did I very much encourage you to do so.

    The ball is in your court. You accused me of something I've not done then you followed it up with insults. It's time for you to support or retract here MarcAC. Do you have the integrity to support or retract your assertions or do you plan to provide more ""I am not drunk" therefore you are not drunk." blather?

    Can you show that I "advocated that two passages are the Bible MarcAC or are you spouting pure nonsense here?
     
  22. Voldemort Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    42
    Genesis chapter I: God created beasts first and then created human.

    001:025 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle
    after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth
    after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

    001:026 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
    likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,
    and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over
    all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth
    upon the earth.


    In Genesis chapter II however god first created human and then beasts:

    002:007 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and
    breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became
    a living soul.

    002:018 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be
    alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

    002:019 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the
    field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam
    to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called
    every living creature, that was the name thereof.

    002:020 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air,
    and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not
    found an help meet for him.


    =====================================================

    So whom god created first?
     
  23. MarcAC Curious Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,042
    I (along with the authors of the article quoted above) did; if you "don't accept (have a problem with) it then state why you don't. Don't just dogmatically bark your opinion and expect everyone to accept it as the words of Jesus The Rock of our salvation; the rock in your name - as observed above - apparently alludes to something totally different.
    That statement to which you refer was actually an analogy. I advice you to review the posts in light of that elucidation. Otherwise we're done.

    Goodbye Throckmorton.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page