143 Contridictions of the Bible.

[SteveS]

Hi JustInterested, just a few things:

The URL you posted gives me a "Page Not Found" error - is it perhaps just a mistaken URL?  I'm curious to know how somebody would address some of these contradictions --- that fact that they've addressed them is meaningless to me unless I can see what their response was (and whether it holds water or not).  Also,

I have complete faith

That's all you really had to say --- an appeal to faith makes the existence of contradictions in scripture irrelevant.  The contradictions will only matter if you are trying to read the work rationally;  to subject it to logical critical analysis.  As soon as you say "I have faith" you are conceding that your interpretation of the scripture is not following a rational guideline.  So who cares if it has contradictions?  Certainly not you --- because you have faith  :wink:  .

Said another way,

As I discussed earlier, how the Bible was written and it's contents doesn't really matter to the non-believer. It's not made for the non-believer. So The Bible and it's contents have no affect (affect or effect? I never could get that one) on the non-believer.

So, as you say, belief comes first.  You must believe, then you can read the content and find meaning in it somehow through faith.  But faith comes first, bible comes second.  

Two things that puzzle me about this approach:

1) This is odd if

... for us believers (in Jesus Christ that is), it is all about the relationship (or atleast should be) with Jesus Christ.

because how would anyone have ever heard of Jesus without the bible?

2) You must agree that a rational person will not find faith by reading the bible.  As you say, you must have the faith first.  A rational analysis is doomed to failure --- which is a point I'm very content to rest on  :wink:  .

[MommaSquid]

Does anyone here know if there are contradictions in the Book of Mormon?

[Shalo'zier]

Does anyone here know if there are contradictions in the Book of Mormon?

You can check out the Skeptic's Annotated Book of Mormon for stuff. There are only 2 contradictions within the book though, but more in the science presented by the book.

[Whitney]

And I'm sure the Bible isn't the reason you initially said no the question "Is there a God?"

Actually, it was the reason I began to question Christianity.  I found a journal I wrote back in high school the other day and there is a part in it where I was writing about my friends being from various christian denominations and me finding myself to be more non-denominational.  Then followed that observation by stating that a lot of the bible simply didn't make sense but that i thought i was true then saying I think I believe that.  The date for that journal entry was during a time I had remembered myself being really religious.  So, I think it is safe to say that the contradictions in the bible do cause those who honestly believed to question the foundation of that belief.

You are right that the bible had nothing to do with why I don't believe in any god.

[JustInterested]

JustInterested wrote: ‹ Select ›
I have complete faith

That's all you really had to say --- an appeal to faith makes the existence of contradictions in scripture irrelevant. The contradictions will only matter if you are trying to read the work rationally; to subject it to logical critical analysis. As soon as you say "I have faith" you are conceding that your interpretation of the scripture is not following a rational guideline. So who cares if it has contradictions? Certainly not you --- because you have faith  .

The problem here is you think faith and logic can't co-exist.  I don't have faith that these aren't contradictions.  My faith is in Jesus Christ (I'll expound on that more here in a second) and from this I can deduce logically that these aren't contradictions.  When doing this you must have a starting point, a definition.  In this situation, God has to be our starting point.  Heres where the problem comes in.  If you say I don't believe in God, then you certainly don't believe the Bible is the Word of God and therefore certainly you wouldn't care about the contradictions either (your argument works both ways).  Anyways back to my logic.

So since God is my starting point and I've made the decision to first believe and then put my faith in him, I now have to define him.  We can only define Him how the Bible defines Him because thats who He is.  The Bible defines him as all-knowing and unable to lie (among other things). I'll stop right there because now I can conclude that none His words contradict themselves.

So I believe in the biblical God therefore His word is true and these are not contradictions.

This is why I have a problem with the argument "If there was a God then why..."  Once you suppose the biblical God exists, the only conclusions you can logically make are ones that don't contradict the Bible.  Meaning you can't say "Well if God existed yadi, yadi, yadi... that's why He doesn't exist."  That doesn't make sense.  I could see George saying that one. Movin on!

Said another way,

JustInterested wrote: ‹ Select ›
As I discussed earlier, how the Bible was written and it's contents doesn't really matter to the non-believer. It's not made for the non-believer. So The Bible and it's contents have no affect (affect or effect? I never could get that one) on the non-believer.

So, as you say, belief comes first. You must believe, then you can read the content and find meaning in it somehow through faith. But faith comes first, bible comes second.

Two things that puzzle me about this approach:

1) This is odd if

JustInterested wrote: ‹ Select ›
... for us believers (in Jesus Christ that is), it is all about the relationship (or atleast should be) with Jesus Christ.

because how would anyone have ever heard of Jesus without the bible?

2) You must agree that a rational person will not find faith by reading the bible. As you say, you must have the faith first. A rational analysis is doomed to failure --- which is a point I'm very content to rest on  .

1.   Obviously the Bible existed before I had faith.  I heard the story of Jesus before I had faith.  But I also believe every single one of us has to make a choice about the existence of God.  Whether it's choosing to believe a god exists, believe no gods exist, choosing not to think about it(after you've thought about it of course), etc.  So when you hear the words of the Bible you have to make some kind of choice.  Still at this point it's just a story.  So now anyone who chooses not to believe the story is true for what every reason cannot engage in a relationship with God through Jesus Christ and therefore unable recieve the full meaning of God's word.  Remember we are talking about God's Word.  These are His Words.  If we as humans with limited minds were able to understand God's Word with only human rational thought then that would make us God or vice versa.  So we need His help to understand His word.  We need the Holy Spirit!  Yay!!! (as my girlfriend says... shes not here. she just says yay alot... I'm a dude by the way... and have ADHD... wait...).  Hang with me I'll answer your question after a little preaching.

So how do we get the Holy Spirit.  We first have to believe the Biblical God exists.  This means Jesus Christ died for our sins.  This means I have to admit that I am a sinner and need a savior.  So you invite Jesus to come live in your heart.  By this act of faith He says yes and you have the beginning of a beautiful relationship (if you so choose to keep persuing it by keeping the faith).  At this point the Bible is no longer a story but is now the Word of God. This happens after you first believe and then prove it by faith by denying oneself and choosing Jesus Christ. This is what I meant by faith first then the Word of God.

This has to be a choice btw.  For God to minipulate it to where we were forced to believe would be dehumanizing.  It would be like forcing someones hand in marriage.  There probably wouldn't be much Love there.

2.  I don't believe a rational person, irrational person, a koala bear or Michael Jackson could find faith.  Faith isn't something thats found.  It's revealed.  I believe this chair will hold me, how much faith I have in that is revealed when I sit on it or don't sit on it or how tentatively I sit on it.  The great thing about Jesus Christ is, he doesn't ask us to sit down without any doubts, he just asks us to sit no matter how tentative and he'll hold us up.

Yes, rational thought from a human being with a limited mind is doomed  when trying to understand Gods Word when not believing in God.  But that in itself makes sense and Ironically provides some evidence that His Words are true when he says anyone who rejects Jesus Christ will be blinded, foolish, and without wisdom (doesn't say not able to reason with the knowledge obtained).

Anyways, sorry if this came off a little preachy.  I understand I can't change anyone and that is not purpose.  I found that engaging in tough questions has led me to search for answers which has in turn increased my faith and at the same time fulfills my need to analyze things.  And who asks the tough questions?  Inteligent atheists!  So thats why I'm here.  I wonder how a Christian forum would react to an atheist posting?

[JustInterested]

The link didnt work but this is the right address.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm

[MikeyV]

2.  I don't believe a rational person, irrational person, a koala bear or Michael Jackson could find faith.  Faith isn't something thats found.  It's revealed.  I believe this chair will hold me, how much faith I have in that is revealed when I sit on it or don't sit on it or how tentatively I sit on it.  The great thing about Jesus Christ is, he doesn't ask us to sit down without any doubts, he just asks us to sit no matter how tentative and he'll hold us up.

I don't understand why the religious ALWAYS use this sitting in a chair == faith analogy. It's fatally flawed.

I understand the properties of wood, metal, plastic, and other materials used in chair construction. I understand the properties of glue, nails, staples, and other joinery. I understand weight distribution, and the relative weight limits of chairs. I've seen people sit in chairs, and I've sat on them in the past.

That's not faith, that's observation and critical thinking. That's real world stuff. Heck, I can even make a chair.

The problem here is you think faith and logic can't co-exist.

Well, yeah. Faith is the belief in something for which no proof exists. Sort of the antithesis of logic.

Food for thought: If we were having this conversation in Riyadh right now, you'd be telling us that there are no contradictions in the Koran, and that once we accepted the word of our pedophile prophet Muhammad (PB&J), we'd see that there were no contradictions.

Pretty interesting how religious beliefs are tied to geography.

[jcm]

JustInterested:

How would a child born in a small tribe in Africa receive the “real” word of God? How would this child ever know anything about Jesus and the teachings of Christianity? This child would grow up in his or her tribe and learn some form of religion from the elders, but their religion would be completely wrong, according to you. For this child to know about Jesus, a Christian would need to go to that village and teach them about Christianity. However, what makes your version of god so much better that their version? Explain to me how your religion is the right religion and theirs is not when you came to know Christianity in a similar way? Also if no Christian ever went to that tribe to teach them about Christianity, then they would never know anything about Jesus or the God you worship. No amount of faith would reveal Jesus to them. They would simply not know anything about him. Did you see and talk to Jesus or did someone else teach you about him? Explain to me what would happen to this child’s soul if they never heard about Christianity, and how could god let this happen?

[SteveS]

Hey JustInterested - thanks for taking the time to construct your considered response.  Allow me to do it the justice of a thorough rejoinder.

Okay, first off:

The problem here is you think faith and logic can't co-exist. I don't have faith that these aren't contradictions. My faith is in Jesus Christ (I'll expound on that more here in a second) and from this I can deduce logically that these aren't contradictions. When doing this you must have a starting point, a definition. In this situation, God has to be our starting point.

I very strongly disagree - logic has to be our starting point.  Without logic we can have no meaningful discussion.  To explain what I mean by this, consider how you would explain what god is, or what qualities god possesses, if you throw logic under the bus?  Without the law of identity, a thing does not have to be itself.  So what is god?  Without the law of the excluded middle (a statement must be either true or false), and the law of noncontradiction (a statement cannot be both true and false), then what does the statement "God is unable to lie" mean?  Is this true, false, both, or neither?  The correct answer is "none of the above - the statement is meaningless without logical backing".

In the final anaylsis, logic must rule the day.  Otherwise, we devolve into nonsense and meaninglessness.

With this being the case, I say that your decision to "start with God" is wrong; you must start with logic - we are all constrained to start with logic.

So, on to the question at hand, "can faith and logic co-exist".  Well, the very fact that we are distinguishing faith from logic shows that the two concepts are different.  Since logic must rule the day, and logic embodies the law of noncontradiction, then in order to show that faith and logic can co-exist we must demonstrate that faith and logic do not conflict.

Certainly, it's possible for things that are not logic to co-exist with logic.  Consider science - it co-exists happily with logic.  This is because whenever our science is shown to be illogical we recognize that this means the science is wrong, and we alter our science.  But, what you've demonstrated in your argument is that you "force" faith and logic to "co-exist" by using faith to trump logic.  When there is conflict, you resolve it through faith and not through logic - so you have actually demonstrated that faith and logic cannot co-exist.

To illustrate my point - when we identify a logical contradiction in the bible you do not take this as what it is - evidence that the passage in question must be wrong.  Instead, you appeal to faith.  You're going to argue that your faith is logical but it is merely a logical deduction from an unjustified presupposition.  Namely,

Premise 1: God is unable to lie
Premise 2: The bible is the word of god
Conclusion: The bible cannot contain contradictions

But this argument begs the question "Is the bible the word of god?", or possibly "Is god unable to lie?".  I know you feel that logic backs you up because you are employing a logical deduction --- but a logical argument is dependent upon all its pieces functioning together.  Another way to say this is that a conclusion is only as strong as the premise upon which it is based.  This makes it incumbent upon you to logically demonstrate and support the premise of this argument: that the bible is the word of god and that god is unable to lie.  But you make no pretension of backing this up logically and don't hesitate to defend these premise with faith:

I've made the decision to first believe and then put my faith in him

So, consider the unenviable position that we've found ourselves in: between a logical analysis of the bible showing a contradiction, and a faith based argument that contradicts the first finding, we have actually shown that in this case faith must have led us astray - it must be wrong.  If it were true, then it would not conflict with logic.  If we try to trump logic with faith, then we cannot rely on logic at all.  In fact, any claim that your deduction should be valued based on it's being logical goes out the same window you just threw the rest of the logic.

Another problem I have with this is that your entire argument is circular.  

So since God is my starting point and I've made the decision to first believe and then put my faith in him, I now have to define him. We can only define Him how the Bible defines Him because thats who He is.

The bible is "who he is".  So, the bible and god are interchangeable at this point since you've equated them.  So saying that "god is my starting point" is perfectly akin to saying "the bible is my starting point".  Now, we are able to present your argument in it's true form:

Premise: The bible is correct
Conclusion: The bible is correct

Basically, you are saying that if you believe (accept through faith) that the bible is correct, then you will believe the bible is correct.  Which is a meaningless tautology.

Also, here is a statement that I find troubling:

So I believe in the biblical God therefore His word is true and these are not contradictions.

I would hasten to point out that the only conclusion you can draw from the statement "I believe in the biblical God" is that "I believe his word is true".  Belief cannot alter reality.  Truth is true, and Falsity is false, irregardless of what anyone believes.  Believing something to be true or false cannot alter the actual fact of whether it is, in fact, true or false.

Phew - I'm getting hand cramps (and getting seriously thirsty), so I'm gonna have to wrap this up.

Response to section:

1. Obviously the Bible existed before I had faith ...

My above basically covers this point.  We must use logic to make sense of everything and anything, or we can make no sense at all.  "human rational thought", as you say, is just thought that is concordant with logic.  If logic cannot make sense of god's word, then god's word does not make sense.  Period.

Also, you argue we must all choose to believe, not to believe, or ignore the question.  I agree - but I would stress that you must base your belief on a logical inquiry.  You cannot just presuppose that god exists and then somehow justify your choice.  Your choice, and your belief, must be logical extensions of truth if you want them to have any validity.

Response to section:

2. I don't believe a rational person, irrational person, a koala bear or Michael Jackson could find faith ...

Same answer as above - also, I think MikeyV addressed this very sufficiently in his post, and jcm also raises a similar and very valid counter point (about geographic location, and which religious starting point you choose - the fact that this is guaranteed to create irresolvable conflicts is yet another reason why we must all use logic as our base).

Anyways, sorry if this came off a little preachy. I understand I can't change anyone and that is not purpose. I found that engaging in tough questions has led me to search for answers which has in turn increased my faith and at the same time fulfills my need to analyze things. And who asks the tough questions? Inteligent atheists! So thats why I'm here.

No apologies required - I'm glad you came - I'm enjoying the conversation!  Cheers  

[McQ]

Yeah. What Steve said.  

And I'll take a Sam Adams, please.  

[SteveS]

Sam Adams - Always a Good Choice  

[JustInterested]

Hey Mikey,

I don't understand why the religious ALWAYS use this sitting in a chair == faith analogy. It's fatally flawed.

I understand the properties of wood, metal, plastic, and other materials used in chair construction. I understand the properties of glue, nails, staples, and other joinery. I understand weight distribution, and the relative weight limits of chairs. I've seen people sit in chairs, and I've sat on them in the past.

That's not faith, that's observation and critical thinking. That's real world stuff. Heck, I can even make a chair.

Yes you probably understand how a chair is built but I doubt you requested the stress calculations from the manufacturer.  We all know anytime humans put their hands on something there is a possiblity of failure.  So actually whether you realize it or not, you are putting your faith in the manufacturer, the vendor, and/or the delivery company to some degree on whether they supplied you with a sufficient product.

Sorry I didnt realize the chair analogy was used so often.  I pride myself on originality.

JCM,

How would a child born in a small tribe in Africa receive the “real” word of God? How would this child ever know anything about Jesus and the teachings of Christianity? This child would grow up in his or her tribe and learn some form of religion from the elders, but their religion would be completely wrong, according to you. For this child to know about Jesus, a Christian would need to go to that village and teach them about Christianity. However, what makes your version of god so much better that their version? Explain to me how your religion is the right religion and theirs is not when you came to know Christianity in a similar way? Also if no Christian ever went to that tribe to teach them about Christianity, then they would never know anything about Jesus or the God you worship. No amount of faith would reveal Jesus to them. They would simply not know anything about him. Did you see and talk to Jesus or did someone else teach you about him? Explain to me what would happen to this child’s soul if they never heard about Christianity, and how could god let this happen

Precisely!  Someone would have to go to this said tribe and present them with the Gospel.  Jesus Christ didnt come to send people to heaven and hell, he came so that we may have life on earth by paying the ultimate sacrifice.  It is the believers responsibilty to share the good news.  How this news is shared is where the problems come in.  

On the other hand, if someone or a group of people were never given the oportunity to hear this good news, they would not be punished for this.  It would be like an infant passing.  They never had the oportunity choose or reject Jesus as Lord and Savior.

I don't like to look at ones beliefs being better or worse.  It's all about the truth.  I believe Jesus Christ is the truth.  Not because my mom said so.  Not because the preacher said so.  Not because I lived in the United States.  You can't fool God.  I heard the story of Jesus because of these people and I couldnt say no.  Still nobody made the choice for me. This is one of the reasons I believe that faith in Jesus is the only way.  He dosent discriminate.  You can be rich or poor, disabled or athletic, in any location, old or young, etc.  The only thing you need is a heart and a choice.

I guess I could ask you the same questions.  What makes your choice right and the tribes choice wrong?  Why is your way so much better than theirs?  You see by deciding to not believe in God you are implying that anyone who does is wrong.  I've decided to believe in Jesus Christ and therefore I have to believe that anyone who doesnt is wrong.  But this doesnt make me any different than you. We've just made different choices.  We cant all be right.

Steve,

I'm not going to quote you becuase it confuses me. So I'll somehow try to cover everything in my rambling over the next few sentences.  Of course that all depends on whether I understood what you were saying or not. So here we go.

You say a statement must be true or false.  So when I say God cannot lie, this statement must be either true or false and not none of the above as you have suggested.  Now there are 2 possiblities.  If it is true that God cannot lie then these are not contradictions.  If God can lie then who cares about the contradictions.  I really see no problem with this reasoning, I guess I'll call it that and not logic.  I realize this doesn't prove anything and that the conclusion itself is in question but I think the steps are reasonable.  Anyways to more important stuff.

I contend that by simply identifying phrases that someone wrote 2000 yrs ago in a different language as contradicting without any investigation is not only illogical but unreasonable and puts you in the same boat you put me in.  Heck I had trouble just trying figure out what you were trying to say and we are able to respond to one another.  I think this is what you are trying to do.

1. premise - contradictions
2. step - bible can't be true
3. conclusion - biblical God doesnt exist

Certainly I would agree that the conclusion would be true if the premise were true, but I believe you have an unjust premise.  I think upon any investigation in determining the meaning behind these phrases in question you would find at the very least your premise cannot be proven. Which would mean you have also started out with an illogical premise.  

Why can we not simply identify these phrases as contradictory?  Because we must first determine the meaning behind these words and to do this we must get to know the author as well as we can.  Let's take a look at a couple of phrases:

I will never grow grass.
I am going to let my grass grow.

These 2 senteces certainly appear to be contradictory.  But ofcourse when you find out the true meaning behind these 2 phrases you will see that they are not contridictory at all.

I will never grow grass because I don't smoke it and the risk/reward is not in my favor.
I am going to let my grass grow becuase I'm tired of mowing it.

As you can see we must determine the meaning of the words in order to determine whether there is a contradiction or not.

So back to determining the meaning of the biblical phrases in question.  Forget for a moment whether God exists or not.  We just want to know what the author is trying to say at the moment.  To do this we need to get to know the author.  Since in this case we cant talk face to face with him,  we need to look at his other writings.  We need to look at how hes using other words.  We need to look at other claims he's making.  We need to look at possible motives.  We need look at all we can in order to determine the true meaning behind these words. Because what we both want is the truth right? Or atleast some evidence pointing in that direction.

The problem is, upon doing this, we find out that the author has actually claimed to have heard God, he's quoted God, and had recorded accounts that he claims were God inspired.  

So now you've done all you can or atleast got to point where you've realized that choice is ultimately going to have to be made on whether you believe this author or not and this would require a decision on whether or not this Biblical God existed.  And of course this cannot be proven but I do believe if you were to investigate all the evidence and facts surrounding the authenticy of the Bibles contents you would be hard pressed for a convincing arguement that the Words were fabricated.

So now, using logic I might add, I have concluded that you must make a faith based decision about the existence of this Bibilical God before concluding any words of the Bible to be contradictory.  God first!

On the issue of faith and logic.  I guess if you define something logical as something that can be proven then no faith and logic cant co-exist.  But you must concede that every human must make faith based decisions on a daily basis and these decisions are based on logical evidence and that logical decisions follow directly from these faith based decisions.

I think a good example of this is in our Judicial system. We ask 12 people to sit and listen to evidence and make logical deductions in determing whether or not the person on trial is guilty or not. Inviting 12 strangers to determine the outcome of a trial requires faith in itself.  You wouldn't suggest our judicail system is illogical would you?  Anyways lets look at what happens in the court room. The lawyers call witnesses to the stand and jury eventually has to decide whether they believe this person or not.  It cannot be proven that the person is telling the truth.  So the jury makes a faith based decision about the trusworthiness of the witness and then logically deduces from there.  It would be illogically to believe a person when he/she says "I saw him/her do it" and then say "I don't think he/she did it."  So I think it's clear since not everything can be proven, we as humans have to make faith based decisions.  And at times logic plays a big role into what decision we make and the faith based decisions we make affect the logical steps we take afterwards. In this sense, logic influnces faith and faith influences logic.  I think that have to co-exist.
 
Ok I'm done.  Don't know if I covered everthing but the guy who forgot to deliver my honey baked ham last weekend called and I need to chat with him.  I can't believe I put my faith in him and logically invited my mam over for some pig.

[Tom62]

The problem is, upon doing this, we find out that the author has actually claimed to have heard God, he's quoted God, and had recorded accounts that he claims were God inspired.

This makes the auther even more untrustworthy. We've learned from history that many god inspired people lied for god. They though that they could do that, because their special link with god made they stand above the law (even above their own christian laws). Take for example Bishop Eusebius, who wrote in his 12th Book of Evangelical Preparation: "How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived.".

The 5th and 6th centuries was the 'golden age' of Christian forgery. In a moment of shocking candour, the Manichean bishop (and opponent of Augustine) Faustus said: "Many things have been inserted by our ancestors in the speeches of our Lord which, though put forth under his name, agree not with his faith; especially since â€" as already it has been often proved â€" these things were written not by Christ, nor [by] his apostles, but a long while after their assumption, by I know not what sort of half Jews, not even agreeing with themselves, who made up their tale out of reports and opinions merely, and yet, fathering the whole upon the names of the apostles of the Lord or on those who were supposed to follow the apostles, they maliciously pretended that they had written their lies and conceits according to them."

Let's assume that we could take the bible in court. We ask then 12 independ intelligent people to judge whether the bible is truthful or not. Based on all the evidence that we know off, the most likely verdict would be that the bible contains too many lies and inconsistencies and can therefore not be trusted to be the word of a god. Conclusion: you'd need a lot of faith to remain christian, if you know the truth .

[SteveS]

Steve,

I'm not going to quote you becuase it confuses me. So I'll somehow try to cover everything in my rambling over the next few sentences. Of course that all depends on whether I understood what you were saying or not. So here we go.

Eh, this saddens me, I did try to be as clear as I could.  Thanks for trying, anyway.

1. premise - contradictions
2. step - bible can't be true
3. conclusion - biblical God doesnt exist

Suffice it to say that I did not leap to step 3, as I believe this would indeed be a leap (technically a non-sequitur).  For instance, what if the "biblical god" does exist, and that god is not always accurately described by the bible?  

There are actually several reasons that I do not believe the biblical god exists, and I would hold most of these beliefs even if there were not contradictions in the bible.

I feel that you are making a generalization where I was not intending to make one.  My only claim is that if a statement is contradictory then it cannot be true.  Each claimed contradiction of the bible would have to be handled individually;  it's possible that the bible has some true statements, and some false statements.

The problem is that if we find a genuine contradiction, and you argue that faith tells you that the identified contradiction is not, in fact, a contradiction, that I argue that faith is incorrect in this instance.  That's all  :wink:  

Also, simply starting with a presumption that the book cannot contain any contradictions is not logically supportable.  Arguing that the book says it is true, and therefore believing that the book is true without further analysis, is also logically unsupportable - this is a circular argument.

Small clarification,

I really see no problem with this reasoning, I guess I'll call it that and not logic.

Reasoning is the application of logic to thought.  Reasoning is logical.  It's okay, you can call it logic  :wink:  

Here's somthing really important,

Why can we not simply identify these phrases as contradictory? Because we must first determine the meaning behind these words and to do this we must get to know the author as well as we can.

Paydirt!  I want you to understand that you've amended your argument - you are no longer arguing that the bible cannot contain contradictions, you are trying to logically show a way that what we are perceiving as a contradiction could be interpreted in a way that it is not.  Do you recognize that this is very different, fundamentally, from simply arguing that the work cannot contain contradictions?  You are now arguing that based on interpretation, these might not actually be contradictions.  This is a worthwhile exercise.

Per your example,

I will never grow grass.
I am going to let my grass grow.

The problem with this argument is that it is unclear --- if the proponent wished his thoughts to be clearly perceived, he should have written:

1. I will never grow marijuana
2. I am not going to mow my lawn

So, what difference does it make?  Well, if the bible contains the words of a perfect god, then why would a perfect god be unclear?  At the very least, god is not "perfectly clear", and therefore not really perfect.  But we know the bible was probably written by people, right?  So, maybe what's really going on is that the people have got things wrong, or made things unclear.  But if so, then can we trust the description of god given to us in the bible?  Not without reservation.  Agreed?

The problem is, upon doing this, we find out that the author has actually claimed to have heard God, he's quoted God, and had recorded accounts that he claims were God inspired.

So, what we have is a personal claim, with no supporting evidence.  I find no reason to give this undue credence.  People lie, people fabricate, people are mistaken.  The fact that somebody claims god spoke to them personally makes me doubt the objectivity of the individual more than it makes me believe in god.  Plenty of people "witness" that they have been abducted by aliens, see ghosts, and have traveled through space and time outside of their own body.  Do you believe these accounts just because they are given by another human being?  Do you believe every accused criminal who maintains their innocence?  What about people who claim they can cast magical spells, read minds, communicate with the dead, etc.?

So now you've done all you can or atleast got to point where you've realized that choice is ultimately going to have to be made on whether you believe this author or not and this would require a decision on whether or not this Biblical God existed.

Eh, not quite.  If I decided that I did not believe the author, then I would not take his statement as evidence that the biblical god existed.  If I did believe the author, then I might.  My point being that to be logical, we would first have to decide whether or not the author was accurately reflecting the truth.  Then we could make a decision as to the existence of the biblical god.  Logic first, god second.

And of course this cannot be proven but I do believe if you were to investigate all the evidence and facts surrounding the authenticy of the Bibles contents you would be hard pressed for a convincing arguement that the Words were fabricated.

I, of course, disagree.  I think it can be readily shown that historical events are incorrectly portrayed in the bible.  Whether the words were fabricated or not, there is clear evidence that they are mistaken - they are wrong.  They might not all be "fabricated" because the authors may not have know that they were wrong.  But if they are wrong, surely god would have known since he is allegedly omniscient?  So one thing seems clear, these are not the accurate words of any omniscient gods, because a god could not be both omniscient and mistaken.

So now, using logic I might add, I have concluded that you must make a faith based decision about the existence of this Bibilical God before concluding any words of the Bible to be contradictory. God first!

Okay, this is a tad depressing.  I have tried to be very clear about why you must embrace logic first - you must embrace logic even to read the bible or you cannot make any sense of any written statement in any language.  Giving you the benefit of the doubt, and allowing there to be metaphorical statements in the bible that are open to interpretation, you must still argue that the work is reliable before you choose to believe what it says (if you want to say that you are behaving logically).  Saying "God first!" is a clear indication that you do not, in fact, understand my objection.  I require no faith-based decision to read the bible one way or another.  If the bible is the only evidence of god, then I would require a faith based decision to believe in god, because the evidence is not reliable.  If there is no evidence of god that can be rationally demonstrated to another human being, then you do not require faith to reject a god belief.  Faith is belief in the absence (or disregard) of rational evidence.  If I do not believe because I do not have evidence, that is a rational (and not faithful) decision.

On the issue of faith and logic. I guess if you define something logical as something that can be proven then no faith and logic cant co-exist. But you must concede that every human must make faith based decisions on a daily basis and these decisions are based on logical evidence and that logical decisions follow directly from these faith based decisions.

Again, I disagree.  Logic is a process, deriving statements from known values.  Logic is used to prove things, and logical thought can happily embrace unknowns.  When you quantify those unknowns, you have probability and statistics.  Furthermore, I do not have to be able to prove something to have a rational basis for believing it.  What I do have to have is a reason that is rationally demonstrable, and I have to qualify my belief as being uncertain if my basis is uncertain.  Sometimes our beliefs can be said to be very certain, other times they can have significant uncertainties, but if they can be rationally justified then they are rational beliefs.  If I have evidence that a particular thing is very unlikely, then a positive belief in that thing cannot be held rationally.  Examples:

1. I believe it is possible, although very unlikely, that I may win the lottery with the ticket I just purchased from White Hen.  (This is rational)

2. I believe that I am going to win the lottery with the ticket I have just purchased from White Hen, because I'm feeling lucky today.  (This is not rational)

3. I believe that I am going to win the lottery with the ticket I have just purchased from White Hen, because I "fixed" the lottery machine to pick the same numbers in the drawing as the ones I just purchased .  (This is rational - although its also unethical and illegal)

You are right to say that these beliefs are crucial - if I believed, irrationally, that I was going to win the lottery with the ticket I just bought (in the case where I am not cheating) and then quit my job, well, this is how irrational beliefs lead to damaging irrational behavior.  This is how behaving rationally (it's unlikely that I'll win, so I'm keeping my job until the drawing and only quiting if I win) is superior to irrational (I have faith that I will win so I'm quiting my job now --- oops, I lost, now what?  Guess I'll have to try to find another job, probably can't use the previous employer as a reference, either.)

About the jury trial --- technically, the tribunal asks the jurors if they feel the charges have been proven "beyond a reasonable doubt".  There is no place for faith in a courtroom - you must evaluate the evidence, and do so with all regard for logic and rational thought.  If the evidence against a person was simply one person's eye-witness testimony then I would have a very hard time convicting that person.  But what if there is blood, DNA, physical links to the crime scene, hard photographs of the person at the crime scene, maybe video of the accused committing the crime?  Now, not believing they did it seems to be lacking evidence - the evidence is overwhelmingly indicating that they did.  The court specifically calls on reason - they pivot the case on a "reasonable" doubt.  They do not call on faith.

I'm not trying to be personally insulting, but let me say that the prospect of me being on trial and you being in the jury box is scaring the hell out of me right now  

 :wink:

[JustInterested]

Steve,

I think we've shown just in the short while of communicating in the same time period the importance of getting to the meaning behind the words of another person.

Paydirt! I want you to understand that you've amended your argument - you are no longer arguing that the bible cannot contain contradictions, you are trying to logically show a way that what we are perceiving as a contradiction could be interpreted in a way that it is not.

Sorry if I gave the perception of trying to show the bible had no contradictions.  From the beginning I've only been trying to show why I believe the Bible doesn't contradict itself.  I admitted last post that simply saying the The bible is the Word of God, God can't lie, so these aren't contradictions doesnt prove anything.  But I  also showed you must make a decision about the existence of the Biblical God before you can determine the meaning behind any of the versus in the Bible (I wasn't trying to say God first then logic, I was trying to say Decision about God before conclusion about meaning of Words).  I'll try to demonstrate this again.

You say,

Eh, not quite. If I decided that I did not believe the author, then I would not take his statement as evidence that the biblical god existed. If I did believe the author, then I might. My point being that to be logical, we would first have to decide whether or not the author was accurately reflecting the truth. Then we could make a decision as to the existence of the biblical god. Logic first, god second.

Right, you would first have to decide whether the author was being truthful and in doing so you would be making a decision about the existence of the Biblical God.  One of the things the Bible says is that The Word is God and God is the Word.  So if you decided you did not believe the author then you would be saying the Word is false and therefore the Biblical God is false.  My argument before was intended to show that you must make a decision about the existence of the Biblical God before you can logically make a conclusion about the "apparent contradictions" and I think I've shown this.  Since I believe the authors of this book, it would be "irrational" for me to believe that the Bible contradicts itslef.

The problem with this argument is that it is unclear --- if the proponent wished his thoughts to be clearly perceived, he should have written:

1. I will never grow marijuana
2. I am not going to mow my lawn

So, what difference does it make? Well, if the bible contains the words of a perfect god, then why would a perfect god be unclear? At the very least, god is not "perfectly clear", and therefore not really perfect. But we know the bible was probably written by people, right? So, maybe what's really going on is that the people have got things wrong, or made things unclear. But if so, then can we trust the description of god given to us in the bible? Not without reservation. Agreed?

Oh im getting depressed :wink: .  You said "Well, if the bible contains the words of a perfect god, then why would a perfect god be unclear? At the very least, god is not "perfectly clear", and therefore not really perfect."  

If The Bible contains the words of a perfect God then the Words are perfect and it is US that is uclear.  Certainly you would agree that a All-Knowing being trumps the logic of a human being.  I discussed in a previous post as to why the bible is not presented in a seemingly clear cut way.

Yes I agree if there are Words that arent meant to be their then I couldn't trust the description given in the Bible of God.  But again if you want to logically decide if some Words don't belong, you must first determine the meaning behind these Words and thus make a decision about the existence of the Biblical God.

See, you have to understand this whole thing can't be about logic.  There are so many different people with different levels of intelect that it would be silly that the basis for finding God would be dependent on ones ability to analyze using logic.  I'm sure 'and I think you would agree, that there are people who are able to logically argue much more affectively than you and I that are on both sides of the fence.  There are philosofers that believe in God and there are philosifers that don't.  There are Historians that believe in God and there are historians that don't.  There are Psychiatrists that believe in God and there are Psychiatrists that don't.  There are archeologist that believe in God and there are archeologists that don't.  There are scientists that believe in God and there are scientists that don't.

This isn't about facts, there are facts and evidence that support both sides.  This is about the one thing that keeps us alive.  This is about heart. It has to be.  Imagine being in a relationship based completely on logic and facts.  There would be no surprises.  There would be no trust issues.  There would be no questions.  There would be no news. There would be no need for faith.  And in turn, there would be no excitement, no fun, no learning, no progress, and worst of all NO LOVE.  The very thing God created us for, to love Him and to be loved, wouldn't exist.

My intentions for responding to this thread were to give the non-believer some insight into how a Christian could believe the Bible even with these apparent contradictions. Obviously for one non-believer to tell another non-believer that the Bible is not true is meaningless.  So I took it implicatory that the purpose of this post was to give ammunition to use against the believer. I fully understand why you believe these verses to be contradictory, hopefull now you can atleast, even if it's just a little bit, comprehend why I don't believe these are contradictions (In short, I believe every word in the Bible is the inspired Word of God and it would be irrational for me to believe it contained contradictions).  You may think it's irrational for me to believe that these Words are the inspired Word of God, but like I said earlier, in this situation it cannot all be about facts and logic.  I'm not crazy.  CS Lewis wasnt crazy.  Dr. Gary Collins is not crazy.
We've just made a different choice.

I'm not trying to be personally insulting, but let me say that the prospect of me being on trial and you being in the jury box is scaring the hell out of me right now

Where's your faith?