Contridictions in the Bible

[joeactor]

I know what your getting at.  But weather you know it or not, thats a "damned if you do or damned if you don't"  mentality when it comes to the Bible that I often see.  With that mentality, the theory is that you can make any peace of literature "infallible."  But if you bring any other peace of literature , especially when it comes to religion to focus, it will fail the test.  For example, the Quran on a science front:

 Till, when he [the traveller Zul-qarnain] reached
the setting-place of the sun,
he found it going down into a muddy spring, ...
-- Sura Sura 18:86

Thanks for the response ManOfGod.

But I think you'll find that any group of religous believers will defend their holy book by coming up with "logic" to support the belief:
http://www.muslimhope.com/ZulQarnain.htm

The interesting thing is that if you google for the "Muddy Spring" problem with the quran, you get a load of pages defending the quote...

And the same thing is true if you look for the bible's error in the value of Pi=3.

When you start with a conclusion (my holy book is always right), add in god and a bit of human intelligence, I have little doube that believers can come up with excuses, ahem, er... reasons to fit any given problem.

Pi is not equal to three.  And the bible is incorrect or misleading about a great many things.  Possibly even the existence of Jesus.

The real question is why aren't any of god's books accurate?  Is he trying to be misleading? Or maybe it's like in math class, when the teacher is giving you hints to lead  you in the right direction?  ("uh, you might try 3 for pi...").  You'd think if god intended us to follow in his path, the books he inspires would have clear messages.  (do not kill... except those women and children over there... uh, 'cause I told you too, so that makes it ok...)

It's much easier for me to accept faith as a concept if people don't try to prove it.
If you could prove it, faith would not be needed.

I'll be the first to admit that my faith in a higher power is not based in empirical evidence or logic.

In my opinion there are many times when god is not the answer... he's just an excuse.

Rambling forward,
JoeActor

[G.ENIGMA]

The real question is why aren't any of god's books accurate? Is he trying to be misleading? Or maybe it's like in math class, when the teacher is giving you hints to lead you in the right direction? ("uh, you might try 3 for pi..."). You'd think if god intended us to follow in his path, the books he inspires would have clear messages. (do not kill... except those women and children over there... uh, 'cause I told you too, so that makes it ok...)

It's much easier for me to accept faith as a concept if people don't try to prove it.
If you could prove it, faith would not be needed.

I'll be the first to admit that my faith in a higher power is not based in empirical evidence or logic.

In my opinion there are many times when god is not the answer... he's just an excuse.

Rambling forward,
JoeActor

Thats the point I was trying to make "Exactly" JoeActor you just put it much more eliquo.. eliquin... eliqueen ...

[youtube:ewrr3hqf]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWqgD7lGneU[/youtube:ewrr3hqf]

[Man-ofGod]

I know what your getting at. But weather you know it or not, thats a "damned if you do or damned if you don't" mentality when it comes to the Bible that I often see. With that mentality, the theory is that you can make any peace of literature "infallible." But if you bring any other peace of literature , especially when it comes to religion to focus, it will fail the test. For example, the Quran on a science front:

Till, when he [the traveller Zul-qarnain] reached
the setting-place of the sun,
he found it going down into a muddy spring, ...
-- Sura Sura 18:86

And from a historical point its not a reliable document at all

From my point of view on a quick glance that verse just looks like someone saw a reflection of the sunset in a pool of dirty water ... but described in a more poetic way, it probably means something else to others.

Thats my point.

The jist I am getting from your argument though is that the Bible is a matter of opinion (yours or someone elses), he (god) meant this or what he really meant was that.

Why is it all so ambiguous

Again, you can find ambiguity in allot of statements taken out of context from all types of sources.  In context tells a different story.  Anyway, the items I picked out from the list weren't ambiguous that I could see, in context.

[G.ENIGMA]

Why is it all so ambiguous :raised:  that my point

The bible is absolutely D-E-F-I-N-I-T-E-L-Y not something that is or could be construed as "In Context"

[Man-ofGod]

The bible is absolutely D-E-F-I-N-I-T-E-L-Y not something that is or could be construed as "In Context"

Not sure what you mean, could you elaborate?

[curiosityandthecat]

Possibly that the context in which the Bible was written is so far removed from modern (or, dare I say, postmodern) life that to say the Bible makes sense "in context" is, in and of itself, illogical.

The Bible is, plain and simply, anachronistic.

[Man-ofGod]

Thanks for the response ManOfGod.

But I think you'll find that any group of religous believers will defend their holy book by coming up with "logic" to support the belief:
http://www.muslimhope.com/ZulQarnain.htm

The interesting thing is that if you google for the "Muddy Spring" problem with the quran, you get a load of pages defending the quote...

And the same thing is true if you look for the bible's error in the value of Pi=3.

Joe, thanks for being candid,

You can pretty much Google anything under the sun and find alternative views.   In  http://www.muslimhope.com/ZulQarnain.htm there is about 8 different theories for just one verse. But as of yet, there is nothing even with in the Muslim community that is conclusive on what the verse means, weather you look at it philosophically or scientifically.

However, In my rebuttal to the Bible contradictions link, I was pointing out the obvious fact that the author of that site didn't really think twice about what he was writing.  Its like me writing a book review on a few paragraphs taking out of context instead of understanding the whole book first.  

When you start with a conclusion (my holy book is always right), add in god and a bit of human intelligence, I have little doube that believers can come up with excuses, ahem, er... reasons to fit any given problem.

Yet if the Bible is true, this is also the exact behavior you would expect to see. See why this is a cop out?  It is not logical to disregard something just on the premise "that a believer can find an excuse for anything in the Bible"    Since the Bible is believed to be infallible, there is no evidence your willing to accept as conclusive. Do you see your error?  Its like the cartoons where they put the carrot on front of the horse and the Horse keeps running but never gets the Carrot. The logical step is to either come up w/ a better explanation or accept the explanation that was given as the most logical explanation.  

Pi is not equal to three.  And the bible is incorrect or misleading about a great many things.  Possibly even the existence of Jesus.

I hears so many variations of this argument.  Jesus did not exist, Jesus existed but as a humanitarian, Jesus never died, Jesus died but never resurrected, Jesus Got married and moved to France. None of them are conclusive.  Ill just give the historical document the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise, so far it hasn't been wrong.

The real question is why aren't any of god's books accurate?  Is he trying to be misleading? Or maybe it's like in math class, when the teacher is giving you hints to lead  you in the right direction?  ("uh, you might try 3 for pi...").  You'd think if god intended us to follow in his path, the books he inspires would have clear messages.  (do not kill... except those women and children over there... uh, 'cause I told you too, so that makes it ok...)

This is interesting.  The message seems clear to me. What is not clear about it to you?

It's much easier for me to accept faith as a concept if people don't try to prove it.
If you could prove it, faith would not be needed.

I'll be the first to admit that my faith in a higher power is not based in empirical evidence or logic.

In my opinion there are many times when god is not the answer... he's just an excuse.

Rambling forward,
JoeActor

If thats what you think faith should be then thats what you think.  To me, I need logic and evidence.  Without it I would never have come to know about Christ, I would still be Atheist.  Do not get me wrong, there is a lot of things in the Bible that require faith, but theres enough logic inside and outside the Bible to allow me to accept the faith part of the Bible.  Anyway thanks for indulging me  

[Man-ofGod]

Possibly that the context in which the Bible was written is so far removed from modern (or, dare I say, postmodern) life that to say the Bible makes sense "in context" is, in and of itself, illogical.

The Bible is, plain and simply, anachronistic.

Do you have an example?

[Ihateyoumike]

The logical step is to either come up w/ a better explanation or accept the explanation that was given as the most logical explanation.  

There is a more logical explanation. Evolution by natural selection and abiogenesis.

[curiosityandthecat]

Do you have an example?

...no offense, but... have you read it?  

Check out A.J. Jacobs' The Year of Living Biblically. Using the Bible as a guide to life is, by definition, anachronistic. Hence, out of context. It is simply incompatible with contemporary Western life.

[Man-ofGod]

The logical step is to either come up w/ a better explanation or accept the explanation that was given as the most logical explanation.  

There is a more logical explanation. Evolution by natural selection and abiogenesis.

Oh no, not the Evolution vs Creation debate.  I refuse to go down that road. I admit that I am a YEC (Young Earth Creationist) now.  Before I was an evolutionist.  I learned it in Catholic school growing up, in elementary school , high school, college, PBS, History Channel, Discovery Channel, Movies, national geographic.  You name it.  I was indoctrinated.  How could it be wrong? When I converted to Christianity, it definitely was not because of Creationism.  Eventually, after researching YEC like I did Christianity, I finally came to accept it fully from a spiritual and scientific point of view.  So if I did not believe it as a Christian, I definitely do not expect to convince you as an Atheist. We both know that each side uses the same evidence, but interprets different. Evidence: Grand Canyon:

World view:
uniformitarians says a creek created it
YEC says a flood created it.

Can I convince you of YEC? answer most likely is no, why? since you do not believe the Bible to begin with, why would you believe its claims about the origins of the earth?  Its a dead end discussion in my opinion. There are Christians that cannot even let go of this concept of evolution because it is so ingrained in their head.  So ill think Ill pass.

[Man-ofGod]

Do you have an example?

...no offense, but... have you read it?   Fortunately, the Bible does not request that we wear sandals outside of the beach.  BTW heres some food for thought, majority of people did not believe in the Judeo/Christian GOD when the Bible was written:)  So your way of life may be more anachronistic then you will ever know.


BTW, I still want an example that stands out for you  Not a whole site.

[Hitsumei]

Chapter 1 is outside the Garden, Chapter 2 is inside the Garden.

There were people created separately, and outside of the Garden of Eden that are not descendants of Adam and Eve? What is your biblical support for this assertion? Who was created separate, and outside of the Garden of Eden? What was their relationship to god?

This would seem to have massive theological implications, which would almost certainly be support for racism, so I find it incredibly strange that I've never heard this before.

Oh no, not the Evolution vs Creation debate.  I refuse to go down that road. I admit that I am a YEC (Young Earth Creationist) now.  

This should really be followed by an apology.  :confused:

One isn't suppose to accept conclusions before they have reason and evidence to do so, that is known as "begging the question", and is an informal logical fallacy. It makes no logical sense to accept a conclusion before it has been demonstrated.

Its a dead end discussion in my opinion. There are Christians that cannot even let go of this concept of evolution because it is so ingrained in their head.  So ill think Ill pass.

YEC is simply disproved. Any person with even a rudimentary understanding of the sciences knows this. To put it bluntly, anyone who doesn't accept that evolution at least occurred -- whether they agree that Darwinism can explain it all, or not is a different story -- is either ignorant or dishonest.

Even the major ID architects, including the only scientist among them, Michael Behe, do not deny that evolution occurred. They merely disagree that Darwinism is apt to explain it all.

We've mapped the human genome. We can demonstrate genealogy between species in the exact same sense that paternity tests demonstrate genealogy between fathers and their offspring for the courts. Even if we completely lacked a fossil record, the DNA evidence is completely overwhelming. Though we do have the fossil record, and it matches exactly with what genetics tells us.

What is a really interesting piece of information, is the fact that donkeys, and horses can reproduce offspring -- mules. Homo sapiens and chimpanzees as more closely related than donkeys and horses are. This implies that without any aid from science, and homo sapien, and a chimpanzee could most likely reproduce. We might be able to produce male offspring with any of the great apes, but could most likely produce both male and female offspring with a chimp or bonobo, and given evidence from similarly related species, many of them may very well even be fertile.    

In any case -- just reading about what we know about ourselves, other species on earth, and how we can form genealogies alone makes denying that evolution at least occurred simply unreasonable.

[Tanker]

What is a really interesting piece of information, is the fact that donkeys, and horses can reproduce offspring -- mules. Homo sapiens and chimpanzees as more closely related than donkeys and horses are. This implies that without any aid from science, and homo sapien, and a chimpanzee could most likely reproduce. We might be able to produce male offspring with any of the great apes, but could most likely produce both male and female offspring with a chimp or bonobo, and given evidence from similarly related species, many of them may very well even be fertile.

I'm going to have to disagree right there, and you were doing so well. From the evidence I've read humans and chimps are NOT genetically compatible and yes expeiriments have been done (eeew), just like chimps and gorillas aren't. On top of that when different but closely related species do mate they are nearly if not always sterile, and have other genetic flaws, as in the case of the liger (lion and tiger) never stops growing. If you know anything about gigantisism, abnormaly large growth causes many health problems. Acording to the evidence I've read cross speiciation by natural means can't produce healty geneticly viabe offspring. Which may be why Neanderthal dna has not been found in humans even though we were even more closely related to them (though there is some evidence of cross/offspring no dna today would mean they too were infertile).

[Hitsumei]

I'm going to have to disagree right there, and you were doing so well. From the evidence I've read humans and chimps are NOT genetically compatible and yes expeiriments have been done (eeew), just like chimps and gorillas aren't.

Limited experiments were done for a short time in the 20s by the soviets, and they revealed that homo sapien sperm can penetrate all of the great ape eggs in controlled conditions, it was just that no successful pregnancy was recorded, although three attempts were all that was ever made. The genetics all support it as viable however. Also, it was only attempted with homo sapien sperm, and female chimps, where as it is quite possible that it is only possible for homo sapien females to become impregnated by chimp sperm. Although, since both of our sex chromosome match up, either should work.    

On top of that when different but closely related species do mate they are nearly if not always sterile, and have other genetic flaws, as in the case of the liger (lion and tiger) never stops growing.

I did mention this actually, I said that given evidence from similarly related species -- and by this I was specifically referring to the Przewalski horse and the domesticated horse, which have the same chromosomal disparity as us and chimps, and produce semi-fertile offspring, where the males can reproduce with female domesticated horses. You must take into account chromosomal disparity. Horses and Zebras can breed, yet their chromosomal disparity is between 12 and 20, depending on the species. Humans and chimps only vary by 1 pair, and our X and Y chromosomes are identical (though only with chimpanzees and bonobos, as sometime between the time that our common ancestor split off from the other great apes, and our ancestry diverged from the chimps, there was a large transposition of chromosome 1 to chromosome Y, which means that only H. sapiens, chimps and bonobos share both of the same sex chromosomes).  All male mules, and most female mules are infertile, but they don't share exactly the same sex chromosomes, though their chromosomal disparity is also 1.

If you know anything about gigantisism, abnormaly large growth causes many health problems. Acording to the evidence I've read cross speiciation by natural means can't produce healty geneticly viabe offspring.

I never said that the offspring would be healthy. I merely said that they could most likely be produced, although since mules, safari cats, and so forth are all produced, and turn out to be largely viable despite being the product of species that are not as closely related as ourselves and chimps, it is by no means unreasonable to assume that they would be at least as viable.

Which may be why Neanderthal dna has not been found in humans even though we were even more closely related to them (though there is some evidence of cross/offspring no dna today would mean they too were infertile).

This is a non sequitur, by no means all of the individuals that lived thirty thousand years ago have surviving descendants. Because we don't see neanderthal DNA in the modern population merely reveals that no hybrids that achieved a successful genetic legacy existed. There is a reason that when you go back far enough we all share a common ancestor: the overwhelming majority of genetic legacies dry up.