Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Apparent contradictions in the Bible


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
162 replies to this topic

#35 adnaan

adnaan

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 40 posts

Posted 02 July 2005 - 03:22 PM

The Quran was memorized by everyone, where they would review it everyday, and they did this because it was put into their prayers to God. They had actually written the Quran and showed it to Muhammed (prophet), later on after he died, they put it together. At that time you would think they didnt even need a book, they had it all in their brain. The brain is capable of many things if you know how to use it. They used techniques as making the verses into poetic rythmns, to make it easier to remember the lines. It is possible.

When Islam was introduced it had spread fast, many people accepted it, but also many rejected it, I have read stories in which they would torcher those who believed, Muhammed lived a simple life, he didnt have much money, and he ate as much of 2 meals a day, and supposedly always gave to the poor. I have also seen fake prophets, once they had power they abused it, but that was not the case with Muhammed.


A friend gave me another. He is a muslim, and he strongly believes Islam is correct.

No Sign, One Sign, or many Signs?
At one point the Pharisees come to Jesus and ask him for a sign.

In Mark 8:12 Jesus says that "no sign shall be given to this generation."

In contradiction to Mark, in Matthew 12:39 Jesus says that only one sign would be given - the sign of Jonah. Jesus says that just as Jonah spent three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so he will spend three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Here Jesus makes an incorrect prediction - he only spends two nights in the tomb (Friday and Saturday nights), not three nights.

In contradiction to both Mark and Matthew, the gospel of John speaks of many signs that Jesus did:

a. The miracle of turning water into wine at the wedding in Cana is called the beginning (or first) of the signs that Jesus did (John 2:11).

b. The healing at Capernaum is the "second sign" (John 4:54).

c. Many people were following Jesus "because they were seeing the signs He was performing" (John 6:2).

#36 Biochemist

Biochemist

    Eccentric Heretic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2229 posts

Posted 02 July 2005 - 03:53 PM

No Sign, One Sign, or many Signs?
At one point the Pharisees come to Jesus and ask him for a sign.

In Mark 8:12 Jesus says that "no sign shall be given to this generation."

In contradiction to Mark, in Matthew 12:39 Jesus says that only one sign would be given - the sign of Jonah. Jesus says that just as Jonah spent three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so he will spend three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Here Jesus makes an incorrect prediction - he only spends two nights in the tomb (Friday and Saturday nights), not three nights.

In contradiction to both Mark and Matthew, the gospel of John speaks of many signs that Jesus did:

a. The miracle of turning water into wine at the wedding in Cana is called the beginning (or first) of the signs that Jesus did (John 2:11).

b. The healing at Capernaum is the "second sign" (John 4:54).

c. Many people were following Jesus "because they were seeing the signs He was performing" (John 6:2).

In normal usage (in any language, not just Greek) words vary in context. In Mark 8, Jesus tells the Pharisees (the contemporaneous religions leaders) that they would not get a sign at all. This is immediately after feeding the four thousand (Mark 8:1-9). Most folks consider that some sort of "sign" in normal usage. This leads us to the conclusion that the writer of the chapter was either a bit of a moron, or it was obvious to the writer that in normal usage this was consistent. The obvious conclusion is that Jesus was telling the Pharisees that He was not going to give them a sign. The fact that most Pharisees (with some notable exceptions) remained opposed to Christ's teaching suggests that most of them did not see Christ's miracles as signs of anything.

The paragraph about three days in the earth is consistent with the Hebrew usage of "days". Jews would have counted Friday, Saturday and Sunday as "days" even thoguh the total elapsed time was probably less than 48 hours. Again, the obvious descriptions of timing of the crucifixion and the resurrection suggests that you would have to believe that each individual author was pretty thick, or that they saw their text as consistent with the prophecy.

Most scholars to not regard the gospel writers as morons, although I suspect someone out there does.

#37 Erasmus00

Erasmus00

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1561 posts

Posted 02 July 2005 - 03:58 PM

Hahaha! Are you saying the human memory is infallible? Mine isn't. Mine is actually defective now that I think about it.

Regarding the Qur'an: if subsequent translations of Judeo-Christian scripture should be considered unreliable, how can you hold the Qur'an (which professes the same deity: the God of Abraham) reliable, even if it remains unchanged, since it wasn't even written until after Muhammed in the sixth century A.D.? The continuity flows throught the many books that make up the bible, but then this Qur'an comes along much later and basically turns the biblical canon on its head, in the name of the God in the bible?! This logic to me is awry, and the intentions of the Qur'an's writers I find suspect.


The Qur'an doesn't really effect the hebrew scriptures (old testament). It even contains many of the same stories. The only canon that gets turned on its head is the Christian doctrines, because muslims don't believe that Jesus was gods son, only a prophet. The muslims believe that early Christians, specifically Paul, got Christ's message wrong. So they believe that Hebrew scriptures are accurate, the new testament is not, and the Qur'an is.

I don't see why you would find the intentions of the Qur'an writers suspect any more than Christian biblical writers, who essentially turned hebrew scriptures on their head.
-Will

#38 niviene

niviene

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 464 posts

Posted 02 July 2005 - 04:10 PM

One of my biggest pet peeves is one that's in Genesis - which seems to have simply been waved off by everyone, but not acknowledged to my satisfaction. I tend to chalk these up to human error, but I still don't like what I feel are inconsistencies.

Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."
Genesis 2:20 "But for Adam, no suitable helper was found. So the lord caused Adam to fall into a deep sleep;and while he was sleeping he took one of the man's ribs...then the Lord God made a woman from the rib."


In Genesis 1, God creates all those living things first, then man and woman; in Genesis 2, he creates man and then all the living things and then woman. What gets me here is that God creates an evil snake to tempt them with evil, when he already knows the outcome. This is really starting to not agree with me, I'm afraid. At least, not this book.

I'm also wondering about the ages in Genesis 5 - if these guys lived for: Seth lived for 807 years; Enosh lived for 815 years, sorry, 905 years,Kenan lived 910 years, Mahalalel lived 895 years, Jared lived 962 years; etc. These few people pretty much wipe out the 4000 years before Christ's death. Is this a translation problem, or am I really expected to believe this AND that the Earth was created sometime circa 4000 BC? This isn't really a contradiction of the Bible, but more between the Bible and James Ussher. Sorry - I read it incorrectly - that's how long they were said to have lived, but they had children at the age of: Adam was 130 years old, Set was 105 years old, Enosh was 90 years old, Kenan was 70 years old, Mehalalel was 65, Jared was 162, Enoch was 65, Methusalah was 187,Lamech was 182, then Lamech had Noah, who was 500 years old before he had his three children. That's over 1500 years! I guess I have never understood or believed in the bible's concept of time, anyway... but I know some who take it very literally, and I don't understand this.

#39 Southtown

Southtown

    differentiating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1922 posts

Posted 02 July 2005 - 04:16 PM

I don't see why you would find the intentions of the Qur'an writers suspect any more than Christian biblical writers, who essentially turned hebrew scriptures on their head.
-Will

Good point. Perhaps it's merely a matter of perspective. It would depend on the harmony between the OT and Qur'an, and I will just have to read Islam's book to be certain.

#40 adnaan

adnaan

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 40 posts

Posted 02 July 2005 - 04:20 PM

The part where you showed the ages, from what I hear from many Christians and Muslims, they say that back then people were healthy and they lived different life styles and they were basically at a different inter-evolutionary state. Where they were bigger and stronger than how we are today, thats how they were able to live such long lives.

#41 Southtown

Southtown

    differentiating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1922 posts

Posted 02 July 2005 - 05:10 PM

I don't see why you would find the intentions of the Qur'an writers suspect any more than Christian biblical writers, who essentially turned hebrew scriptures on their head.
-Will

Good point. Perhaps it's merely a matter of perspective. It would depend on the harmony between the OT and Qur'an, and I will just have to read Islam's book to be certain.

Actually, I don't think Christianity turned the Jewish scriptures on their head as much as it turned Jewish traditionalism on its head. In reality, NT is completely harmonious with OT as far as I can tell.

#42 IrishEyes

IrishEyes

    Reminiscing

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2710 posts

Posted 02 July 2005 - 07:07 PM

One of my biggest pet peeves is one that's in Genesis - which seems to have simply been waved off by everyone, but not acknowledged to my satisfaction. I tend to chalk these up to human error, but I still don't like what I feel are inconsistencies.

Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."
Genesis 2:20 "But for Adam, no suitable helper was found. So the lord caused Adam to fall into a deep sleep;and while he was sleeping he took one of the man's ribs...then the Lord God made a woman from the rib."


In Genesis 1, God creates all those living things first, then man and woman; in Genesis 2, he creates man and then all the living things and then woman. What gets me here is that God creates an evil snake to tempt them with evil, when he already knows the outcome. This is really starting to not agree with me, I'm afraid. At least, not this book.

niviene, thanks for bringing this up again, especially since you still have questions. I'm not an expert, by any means. I don't even know if I can answer your questions to your satisfaction, but I'm willing to give it a shot. Here goes...
Just for background and information: I have a Scofield Study System King James version in my lap. It belongs to my husband, and he appreciates all of the explanations and footnotes almost as much as he likes the book tabs. :)
For Gen 1:26, there is a footnote that says "Gen 1:26-27 gives the general account of the creation of man, and Gen 2:7, 21-23 the particular." It goes on to add that a bit more to that, but that seems to be it in a nutshell.
There is also a footnote for 2:4, and it explains that Gen 1 deals with the creation of the whole universe, including man and woman; while Gen 2 specifically describes the origin of man and woman without repeating the entire creation story already recorded.
It also mentions the planting of the Garden of Eden, and this happened after the creation of Adam.
I had a hard time with this the first time I studied it as well, because it does seem a bit odd. But when I read both chapters, I realized that the second is just an enhancement of the first. It works that way in a lot of other writings as well. It's like telling the outline of a story, then going back and filling in the details. You get the 'big picture' in the first chapter, then the second tells you the hows and the whys.
Does that make a little more sense, or did I just confuse you more?
Again, please don't take my word for it. Read both through at your leisure, take a few notes, and see if you can't clear up the inconsistencies on your own. That's what usually works for me.

#43 IrishEyes

IrishEyes

    Reminiscing

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2710 posts

Posted 02 July 2005 - 07:10 PM

I'm also wondering about the ages in Genesis 5 - if these guys lived for: Seth lived for 807 years; Enosh lived for 815 years, sorry, 905 years,Kenan lived 910 years, Mahalalel lived 895 years, Jared lived 962 years; etc. These few people pretty much wipe out the 4000 years before Christ's death. Is this a translation problem, or am I really expected to believe this AND that the Earth was created sometime circa 4000 BC? This isn't really a contradiction of the Bible, but more between the Bible and James Ussher. Sorry - I read it incorrectly - that's how long they were said to have lived, but they had children at the age of: Adam was 130 years old, Set was 105 years old, Enosh was 90 years old, Kenan was 70 years old, Mehalalel was 65, Jared was 162, Enoch was 65, Methusalah was 187,Lamech was 182, then Lamech had Noah, who was 500 years old before he had his three children. That's over 1500 years! I guess I have never understood or believed in the bible's concept of time, anyway... but I know some who take it very literally, and I don't understand this.


As for the age thing, that one also got me hung up for a while. But I think you were on the answer by the end of your post. They did live very long lives, up until the flood. But they had children during that time, and some of their years overlapped.
It may also help to understand that the first 11 chapters cover almost 2000 years, if a fundamental view is taken. Genesis 1-11 covers from about 4000BC-2165BC, while Gen 12-50 covers 2165-1800 BC, roughly. So this one book contains more of hisotry than the rest of the Bible put together.

#44 IrishEyes

IrishEyes

    Reminiscing

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2710 posts

Posted 02 July 2005 - 07:23 PM

What gets me here is that God creates an evil snake to tempt them with evil, when he already knows the outcome.

I don't think that God 'created an evil snake to tempt them' at all. Again, this is just my opinion, and I am not known for being infallible, but please humor me and hear me out, ok?
Satan chose the serpent, which was a beautiful creature. Satan still does this today, not usually using a snake though, if you know what I mean. He came in disguise, and the disguise was a beautiful one. For the participation with Satan, the serpent was cursed. Gen 3:14 expalins that the serpent was cursed above all cattle and every beast of the field, and must go upon its belly and forever eat the dust. This seems to say that the serpent possibly had legs before the curse as well.
But it's important to note that God created the serpent as a beautiful creature, not as an evil snake sent to tempt man.
But still, there is hope. In Gen 3:15, often called the Proto-Evangelium, the promise is given that one day, someone will come that will bruise the head of Satan, pictured as the serpent.

Please don't get discouraged while studying this book. I studied Genesis and Job in a "Hebrew Fathers" class that lasted 4 months, and I still got confused. It gets a little overwhelming at first, but if you keep reading, keep studying, keep asking, and keep searching for Truth, you'll get it. I promise!

#45 Biochemist

Biochemist

    Eccentric Heretic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2229 posts

Posted 03 July 2005 - 10:05 AM

...I don't see why you would find the intentions of the Qur'an writers suspect any more than Christian biblical writers, who essentially turned hebrew scriptures on their head.

This is a really interesting point, and quite a good one, E.

As counterarguments:


  • The Muslims do not take the OT at face value. They changed some of the history (notably having Abraham attempt to sacrifice Ishmael, not Isaac) to fit their theology. The Christians made no such changes.
  • The early Christians (and most current ones, for that matter) did not reject Jews. Paul, although focused on gentile conversion, strongly supported ministries among the Jews. Most Muslims do not have any intent to convert Jews to Islam. They seem to prefer other means to decrease Jewish influence.
  • The Muslim position of Jesus-as-prophet is a particularly difficult position to adopt. Jesus declared Himself as deity, and was crucified for it. The argument that Jesus was either liar, lunatic or Lord has merit if you accept that Jesus existed, and fundamentally did what the Bible says he did. Identifying Jesus as a prophet is not a particularly reasonable position.
Thanks for the thoughtful response, E.

#46 Erasmus00

Erasmus00

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1561 posts

Posted 03 July 2005 - 11:49 AM

This is a really interesting point, and quite a good one, E.

As counterarguments:


  • The Muslims do not take the OT at face value. They changed some of the history (notably having Abraham attempt to sacrifice Ishmael, not Isaac) to fit their theology. The Christians made no such changes.
  • The early Christians (and most current ones, for that matter) did not reject Jews. Paul, although focused on gentile conversion, strongly supported ministries among the Jews. Most Muslims do not have any intent to convert Jews to Islam. They seem to prefer other means to decrease Jewish influence.
  • The Muslim position of Jesus-as-prophet is a particularly difficult position to adopt. Jesus declared Himself as deity, and was crucified for it. The argument that Jesus was either liar, lunatic or Lord has merit if you accept that Jesus existed, and fundamentally did what the Bible says he did. Identifying Jesus as a prophet is not a particularly reasonable position.
Thanks for the thoughtful response, E.



But you cannot deny that Christians essentially tossed out much of the legal tradition inherent in Judaism. The laws of Leviticus, among others, are viewed as not being applicable. The focus was shifted from law to love of God.

As to point 1, I'll grant you that the writers of the qur'an do differ in some of what was written in the hebrew scriptures. I don't think this makes their religion inherently suspect.

As to point 2, muslims, traditionally do not try to convert other people of the book, as they feel they are essentially members of the same religion (in the ottoman empire, for instance, Christians and Jews were given more rights then people who weren't following the god of the scriptures).

As to point 3, if you come from the position that Jesus did exist, but that the scriptures recorded his message incorrectly, then its a perfectly tenable position. Muslims come from the position that the early church got the message confused, wrote it down wrong. They would claim he didn't call himself deity. Modern Jews would claim the same thing, the new testament got it wrong.
-Will

#47 Biochemist

Biochemist

    Eccentric Heretic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2229 posts

Posted 03 July 2005 - 11:54 AM

One of my biggest pet peeves is one that's in Genesis...

Good questions, Niv. I saw three different questions:

1) Can we reconcile Genesis 1 aqnd 2? I think IrishEyes' description of the Genesis 1 and 2 interpretation is not only accurate, it is normative for Hebrew poetry. Similar to a couple of points I mentioned earlier, the writer of Genesis probably was not a moronic illiterate. If the adjacent chapters were clearly contradictory, it is pretty unlikely that the author would have penned them that way. Given the proximity of the two accounts, it is reasonable to read them as if the two accounts are readily reconcilable. The style of poetry in Genesis 1-11 is different that others in the OT. But Hebrew poetry tends to be redundant, and sort of cyclic in style. If you read the Psalms (almost any of them) you will find frequent repetition of ideas, often with significant rephrasing. The notion that Genesis 1 and 2 move from the general to the more specific is consistent with Hebrew style, as is the sort of balanced cadence of Genesis 1 to get the whole creation story end-to-end in a single "chapter" (the actual chapters as we see them were added later). Many Hebrew scholars disagree with my views on this. Many don't.

2) How could God create Satan to tempt Adam? This question is sort of a microcosm of all of the confusing questions related to the omnicience and omnipotence of the Creator, such as:

  • How could evil exist in the first place? Who created that?
  • How can God hold us accountable for our actions if He established the environment in which we operate, and knows what we are going to do anyway?
  • How can we really have any choice if God knows the outcome in advance?
  • How can God "respond" to prayer in a sort of cause-and-effect manner if He already knows the outcome and stands outside of Time anyway?
There are probably another 50 similar questions like this. This may seem a little like a cop out, but I think it is fair to expect that the fundamental nature of God is inexplicable. Similarly, quantum physics or string theory seem inexplicable when we discuss the fundamental nature of matter. I think is it unreasonable to expect that the fundamental spiritual drivers of creation and sentient beings would be readily explicable, when the rest of creation is not. I regard the existence of evil as an antinomy (just like the dual slit experiments in quantum physics) . Once I accept the existence of evil (which appears to exist, empirically,) the story of how evil is orchestrated by Satan is easier to accept.

3) What about those genealogies, anyway? Well, I will be obligated to take a doctinral position here (which I don't usually do in these forums). I am not a young earth guy. I am an old earth guy. I don't have any particular time frame as a golden reference, but I am comfortable with the earth age at 4.5 billion years, the universe at about 14 billion, and prokaryotic life beginning at 3.5 billion years ago (or thereabouts). I don't think the "days" in Genesis 1 are 24 hour days, and I don't think the "years" in Genesis 5 are 365 day years either. There are a lot of smart folks (even basic science sorts) that believe the earth is young (i.e., in the 6000 year range). I do not think that position is "stupid". I just don't agree with it. If you read the detailed explanations for earth aging from the (very small minority of) truly scientific young earth Creationists, they are not nutty. They raise a lot of good points about the assumptions in timing of fossils, geological periods, and such. I just don't agree with them. But I do not think anyone ought to discount them either.

I don't think the intent of the author(s) of Genesis 1-12 had anything to do with quantifying elapsed time. By tradition, Genesis was penned by Moses. That would put authorship in the neighborhood of 1300 BC. I am reasonably certain that God was not trying to give Moses a technical explanation of the creation of the universe. Moses would not know what a star was. Moses would not know what a species was. Moses would not know what gravity was. Moses would not know anything about thermodynamics, chemistry, or even the rudiments of biology. So the story describes that God created, man. Man fell subsequent to interaction with evil. God dealt with the fall of man in a constructive way. God continued to deal with man, and occasionally demonstratred that ignoring God is at your peril.

This is analogous to giving your 6 year old a valid explanation of where babies come from. It would be highy inappropriate to consider the story you tell your 6 year old "untrue". But the accuracy is appropriate to the framework of the audience. If you explained oogamous syngamy to your 6 year old, it might be less useful than a more curcumspect story.

Now, Genesis 5: This clearly has element of Hebrew poetic style. Note a couple observations:

The geneologies of Genesis, 4,5 and 11 each consist of thirteen names arranged in eleven generations, and the last generation consists of three brothers. The age of the last father when the three sons were born is unexpectedly high in both lists. Methuselah, the eighth generation on one list, died in the year of the flood; and Serug, the eighth generation on the other list, died in the year of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The name in the middle of each genealogy has a special note attached; Enoch, the middle person of the first genealogy, did not die, but was taken by God. Peleg, the middle generation of the second genealogy, lived at the time that the earth was divided (probably the scattering after the Tower of Babel).

In the Genesis 5 genealogy,all of the numbers listed are multiples of 5 unless the number is a multiple of 5 plus 7 (seven is often used as a Hebrew metaphor for "many" or "very"; note the usage in Genesis 4:24). The only number in the geneaology that is not a multiple of 5 or a multiple of 5 plus 7 is Methuselah (the oldest in the genealogy) and he is a multiple of 5 plus 14 (i.e., very. very) since he is oldest.

Even the genealogies of Jesus (penned far later) are not complete, and very likely intentionally so. The author squoze that genealogy into three set of 14, and left our 4 historical kings of Judah. It is pretty unlikey that the author would expect no one to catch the abbreviation. Rather, the abbreviation in geneology is customary, and was expected in that poetic style.

Overall, I have no idea how long the actual years are in Genesis 5 (or 4 and 11, for that matter). But I think it is pretty unlikely that Methuselah lived exactly 969 years , becasue I do not think the author intended to communicate that.

#48 IrishEyes

IrishEyes

    Reminiscing

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2710 posts

Posted 03 July 2005 - 12:36 PM

In Genesis 1, God creates all those living things first, then man and woman; in Genesis 2, he creates man and then all the living things and then woman.

I woke up this morning and couldn't get this out of my head. I think Bio did a good job of explaining it technicaly. This explanation would have worked with my husband, who is very analytical, and really appreciates such solid facts. However, I would have scoffed and said "whatever!". Then I remembered something that helped me. Now I'm going to give you some personal insight here, so please don't laugh ok?
Have you ever seen "Casablanca"? Or "The Way We Were"?
In 'Casablanca', which is a really great movie, Bogie's character, Rick, owns a bar/casino in Casablanca during WWII. We see him, at the start of the movie, and we learn a bit about him. We get the idea that he's had 'stuff' happen to him. And we guess, through his reaction to different things that are said, that it might have to do with a woman (go figure, right?). Then something really cool happens... we get to go back to Paris, and "see" what actually happened. We don't just get the facts, we get the feelings, and the descriptions, that help us put the facts into context.
The same thing goes for "The Way We Were"... Streisand's character, Katie, is a self-confident, very busy lasy in the first few scenes... then she goes into that club with her boss, and she sees Redford's character. We're transported back in time to experience her college days, and learn a bit of their history. We get the details.
It's not a whole new, or different story in either case. It's just that the screenwriters decided to give us a broader picture first, then fill in the details. Nothing from the flashback scenes detracts from the original scenes. Nothing is inconsistent. The flashbacks fill in the details for us, and answer some of our questions.
Please don't think I'm comparing the Bible to a Hollywood screenplay. I just woke up this morning and remembered that while I was trying to grasp this concept myself, I had a great late-night-chick-flick-marathon with my oldest daughter (as a type of stress-relief from studies), and it all just clicked for me.
And now that you all know that I a) am a hopeless romantic; and :) love watching classics on late night tv, I'm sure you'll all get a bit of a chuckle! :D

#49 Boerseun

Boerseun

    Phantom Cow of Justice

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6062 posts

Posted 03 July 2005 - 01:33 PM

The Bible is full of contradictions, and we will keep on debating it and disagreeing over it for millennia to come.

The reason we will do this, is because we have developed analytical tools and methods that we employ in other walks of life, from science to philosophy, etc.

Our problem here is that we try to analyze the Bible, assuming it to be *the* source of Truth and Morals. Our point of departure is ***-backwards. We shouldn't assume the Book is flawless and then try to reconcile our beliefs with the apparent and obvious contradictions found in it. We will be prejudiced in this regard. We should scrutinize it, and if we find it to be wanting, discard it and take the next Book, until we find "the" Book, that is flawless and consistent, and then take that Book to be *the* source of Truth and Morals. We assume too much in analyzing the Bible.

Trying to analyze the Bible as if there is some actual definitive Truth wrapped up in its thousand-odd pages will be as fruitful as putting the Brothers Grimm's fables to the test. Besides - why do we attach more value to Christian Scripture than to ancient Greek fables, and the ancient Greek gods? Why shouldn't we be worrying about the inherent defects in the Iliad? Why aren't we paying homage to Zeus? Shunning Greek mythology as pagan is not consistent. You can't laugh at people who believe in blue fairies, seeing as you know for a fact that there's only red fairies. You can't see the forest for the trees. Take a step back, and you'll see how improbable the whole issue is. I would refrain from saying ridiculous, but that was on the tip of my keyboard.

#50 IrishEyes

IrishEyes

    Reminiscing

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2710 posts

Posted 03 July 2005 - 03:13 PM

The Bible is full of contradictions, and we will keep on debating it and disagreeing over it for millennia to come.
...
Take a step back, and you'll see how improbable the whole issue is. I would refrain from saying ridiculous, but that was on the tip of my keyboard.

Thanks for chiming in, Boerseun. I always appreciate the chance to learn something new.
As this thread is specifically about the contradictions within the Bible, and you claim that the Bible is full of contradictions, please share a few with us.
I asked Bio if this was supposed to be about contradictions within the Bible, or contradictions between the Bible and other sources. He, as the originator of the thread, wants it to be about contradictions within the Bible itself. If you have specific ones to cite, I'd appreciate the chance to hear them.

#51 IrishEyes

IrishEyes

    Reminiscing

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2710 posts

Posted 03 July 2005 - 03:20 PM

On another note...I don't know if any of you would be interested or not, but I thought I'd offer...
C.S. Lewis wrote a book, Mere Christianity that deals with many of the issues that we've been discussing in this thread and a few others. I have one copy of the book on my desk, and a few others hanging around on my bookshelves. If anyone wants one, please let me know.
I'm not saying that this book has all of the answers, but it is really good at explaining things that come up in converstaions in a very straight-forward and easily understandable way. I refer to it often, and it helps me clear up things in my own head sometimes. I don't agree with every word of every sentence, but overall, I think that it's one of the best books out there that deals with Christianity as a whole, and breaks down some of the issues that seem to give us a hard time. He approaches things from a 'generically Christian' view, not tackling specific denominations or saying that any one is more correct than others. I think a few of you non-denoms would appreciate that. :)
Again, not an endorsement of the product, but a very good read. If you're interested, let me know. Or just pick one up at your local bookstore and give it a look. I think it could be helpful.