Jump to content
Science Forums

Apparent contradictions in the Bible


Recommended Posts

Hey, I think you're onto something. All of those millions of human embryos and fetuses that God kills each year were probably just going to turn out to be mass murders: that's why He killed them. Well, I guess He just misses a couple future mass murders ever few years ... He's only human afterall.

How exactly does God kill embryos?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 162
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Regarding the Gen 1 and 2 issue of creation, it was suggested to me some time ago that "creating" something (gen 1) wasn't necessarily the same as "forming from dust" in the case of man (gen 2), or "c

I would like to suggest that Genesis, for one is but a fragment of an expanded story written in clay tablets of the Sumarian Civilization, some 5000 yrears BC. I suspect that Skippy will not budge mu

My point was that kids don't learn to lie. It is something that is natural for them. Have you ever met a totally honest person, even a child? I doubt it. I know that I have never met one. Was it 'unsa

...coming back to the topic:

 

I think one glaring example would be that one issue that's core and central to the Christian faith.

 

The Immaculate Conception.

 

Back in biblical days, conceiving out of wedlock would prove the mother to be a whore, and I suppose the first instinct would be to stone her to death, as the bible dictates. Remember, it's only later in the NT that Jesus proclaimed whores to also be people, also deserving of His Love.

 

So - here we have a young mother, who knows what the penalty would be for sex outside of marriage. She could've been raped, for all we know. So, she says that she's never had sex before, and that her pregnancy is the "Work of God". Remember, she's fighting for her life here. And, in the ignorant and superstitious frame of mind that held sway in those days, it seems a likely explanation for a fair size of the populace.

 

Could it be that Christianity is based upon a raped woman lying to save her own skin?

 

It's blasphemy, to be sure - but not entirely unlikely, in my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is certainly a topic I'd like to do more research on. Do you know any good sources discussing the spread of the early church?

-Will

The Jewish writer Josephus wrote quite a bit about the rise of the early Christian church. There are many archaeoligical finds dating to the first century in the far reaches of Europe which are proof of the spread taking place that early. Joseph of Arimithea (the one who offered his tomb for Jesus' burial) reportedly traveled as far as England spreading the Gospel. Chrisitanity was also spread into Africa during this time. One of the earliest and oldest Christian churches was founded by the Ethiopian eunuch Phillip talked to in Acts 8.

Link to post
Share on other sites
... she says that she's never had sex before, and that her pregnancy is the "Work of God"....Could it be that Christianity is based upon a raped woman lying to save her own skin?...

It's blasphemy, to be sure - but not entirely unlikely, in my opinion.

This has always been a broadly held view. This is not a contradiction topic (however) but it is interesting.

 

There is pretty good evidence that a lot of Jesus' comtemporaries considered Him an illegitimate son. Comments like "Isn't this the son of Mary and Joseph?" are often interpreted to mean "Isn't this that illiegitimate kid?"

 

Joseph clearly assumed it as well, and (according to the text) made plans to leave Mary quietly. It took the extraordinary intervention (by the appearance of the angel) to move Joseph to stay with Mary.

 

I have always thought that if one is not a Christian, this story is not particularly meaningful. If one is a Christian, it is shocking that God would take a woman of otherwise high regard and create a situation where she appears immoral to her peers. This is another example of an element of the story that is unlikely to have been "made up" by a set of Jewish writers.

 

In the end, Mary is vindicated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is certainly a topic I'd like to do more research on. Do you know any good sources discussing the spread of the early church? ...
E-

 

There is a significant amount written on this topic. I ran across this site:

 

http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/jc.stm

 

That does a pretty good job of summarizing a lot of the early church history, including a summary of all of the early heresies, and the canon chosen by each of the early sects.

 

The site has a pretty diverse bibliography as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I never meant to imply you were a "mental midget" if you feel insulted, I apologize. I had just never encountered a young earth believer, and was curious.

Another one over here. I also subscribe to the Hydroplate Theory and the decay of the speed of light. And I don't put much faith in radioisotope dating methods.

 

And personally I think people should either believe the bible, or not. It's either inerrant, or it isn't. If the six "days" of creation were symbolic for "eras," how did the grass, herb, and fruit created on the third day survive until the sun, moon, and stars were created on the fourth day? Compromise merely breeds complexity.

 

While I don't share your faith, I don't think its entirely unreasonable, I'm just not sure which book to go with (qur'an, buddhist scriptures, bible, torah, what have you).

-Will

Your level-headedness is commendable. =)

Link to post
Share on other sites

And personally I think people should either believe the bible, or not. It's either inerrant, or it isn't. If the six "days" of creation were symbolic for "eras," how did the grass, herb, and fruit created on the third day survive until the sun, moon, and stars were created on the fourth day? Compromise merely breeds complexity.

 

And I suppose you are reading in the origional Hebrew and Aramaic? Translation between languages inherently changes the meaning of the words, because all language is loaded with cultural memes that are bound up in the words. You CANNOT understand anything literally except in it's native language.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And I suppose you are reading in the origional Hebrew and Aramaic? Translation between languages inherently changes the meaning of the words, because all language is loaded with cultural memes that are bound up in the words. You CANNOT understand anything literally except in it's native language.

Which would be best interpreted using conjecture? Ok, then answer my question: "If the six 'days' of creation were symbolic for 'eras,' how did the grass, herb, and fruit created on the third day survive until the sun, moon, and stars were created on the fourth day?"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Which would be best interpreted using conjecture?

 

What?

 

Ok, then answer my question: "If the six 'days' of creation were symbolic for 'eras,' how did the grass, herb, and fruit created on the third day survive until the sun, moon, and stars were created on the fourth day?"

 

You are taking one thing literally (order of creation) and one thing figuratively (days). Can't be inconsistent- so your question is non-sensical. I take both figuratively, as most do, and ascribe this to Hebrew poetry. The POINT of the passage (I feel) is not the order, or the time. The point is the creator and His relationship with His creation (note: creator has several definitions. It can also mean sustainer or "that thing which is responsible for...")

Link to post
Share on other sites
You CANNOT understand anything literally except in it's native language.
Which would be best interpreted using conjecture?
What?

I'm saying ambiguity does not validate conjecture.

 

You are taking one thing literally (order of creation) and one thing figuratively (days). Can't be inconsistent- so your question is non-sensical. I take both figuratively, as most do, and ascribe this to Hebrew poetry. The POINT of the passage (I feel) is not the order, or the time. The point is the creator and His relationship with His creation (note: creator has several definitions. It can also mean sustainer or "that thing which is responsible for...")

You are opening a can of worms that will make your views hard to defend using scripture.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm saying ambiguity does not validate conjecture.

 

Your ambiguity and my conjecture? I'm simply saying that interpriting something outside (and inside, for that matter) it's own native language calls for a large dose of humility in your outcomes.

 

You are opening a can of worms that will make your views hard to defend using scripture.

 

I have faith scripture is up to the challange...

 

Again, all I'm calling for is less intellectual arrogance when talking about taking the Bible literally in English. I'm not saying it's not true, or even a bad position to hold. But saying that if you don't take it literally, you are wrong, is simply arrogant.

 

Things can be true without being literally true. One can subscribe to the truth of the Bible and still take things non-literally. I assume you don't take the parables to be literally stories about folk Jesus knew- or that the many alliterations in Psalms are really, literally true. Why can't the Genesis account serve the same function?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm simply saying that interpriting something outside (and inside, for that matter) it's own native language calls for a large dose of humility in your outcomes.

So you understand me then. Haha ;)

 

One can subscribe to the truth of the Bible and still take things non-literally. I assume you don't take the parables to be literally stories about folk Jesus knew- or that the many alliterations in Psalms are really, literally true. Why can't the Genesis account serve the same function?

Genesis 1 only? or 2 also? The whole book? The OT? The whole bible? Where and how do you draw the line? I don't believe science is perfect, therefore I will stand by the literal interpretation, because I don't want to change my theology everytime science is forced to change course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And personally I think people should either believe the bible, or not. It's either inerrant, or it isn't. If the six "days" of creation were symbolic for "eras," how did the grass, herb, and fruit created on the third day survive until the sun, moon, and stars were created on the fourth day? Compromise merely breeds complexity.

 

Why take that tack? Why assume its an all or nothing thing. Could it be divinely inspired, but perhaps the human beings God was trying to speak through put some of their own bias into the stories?

 

If the bible is inerrant, because its been divinely inspired, why would he allow translations of it to not be divinely inspired? Wouldn't this mean that every translation is divine word, and hence inerrant?

 

And its common metaphorical useage, both in poetry today, and in poetry in Hebrew to use the word day to mean a period of time. Given that, couldn't it be that this wasn't meant to be a literal day, but instead a poetic one?

-Will

Link to post
Share on other sites
Where and how do you draw the line? I don't believe science is perfect, therefore I will stand by the literal interpretation, because I don't want to change my theology everytime science is forced to change course.

 

Now THERE'S a good point. It certainly has befuddled many. Personally, I see it like this: Science tells you how the world looks, religions tells you why the world is. Does it matter to the point of the Bible if the earth was created in 7 days or 5 billion years? If the point of the Bible is to tell the story of creation (my def.), mankinds fall from grace and redeption through love, and to set the tone of God's relationship with man, then no- it doesn't matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...