Alleged Contradictions in the Bible

I'm not a Christian and one thing always baffles me. Okay, so Jesus is the son of God. But hes not God. Hes a human. But then his mother is also human- with no connection to God. So the son of God, is the son of Mary, who isn't and isn't related to any God. And then you've this three way thing. A god, a son (whos not a God, just a son from another mother who is somehow THE son of god), and this spirit. So is this spirit also God? Is it a God? If all these make up God, then who is the God that is one of the three thigns that make up God. Please clarify.

 

Sorry, just because scientists don't back up your little book of myths doesn't mean they don't believe in a god or do good science.


Since God is untestable, many rule him out.

Gee, if he's untestable I wonder why they rule him out? Many don't. The sciences are dominated by theists. Can you not grasp this? Science isn't about proving the bible or god.

Here's an article you might like to read:



Sadly, an Honest Creationist
by Richard Dawkins

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 21, Number 4.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Creation ?scientists? have more need than most of us to parade their degrees and qualifications, but it pays to look closely at the institutions that awarded them and the subjects in which they were taken. Those vaunted Ph.D.s tend to be in subjects such as marine engineering or gas kinetics rather than in relevant disciplines like zoology or geology. And often they are earned not at real universities, but at little-known Bible colleges deep in Bush country.

There are, however, a few shining exceptions. Kurt Wise now makes his living at Bryan College (motto ?Christ Above All?) located in Dayton, Tennessee, home of the famed Scopes trial. And yet, he originally obtained an authentic degree in geophysics from the University of Chicago, followed by a Ph.D. in geology from Harvard, no less, where he studied under (the name is milked for all it is worth in creationist propaganda) Stephen Jay Gould.

Kurt Wise is a contributor to In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation, a compendium edited by John F. Ashton (Ph.D., of course). I recommend this book. It is a revelation. I would not have believed such wishful thinking and self-deception possible. At least some of the authors seem to be sincere, and they don?t water down their beliefs. Much of their fire is aimed at weaker brethren who think God works through evolution, or who clutch at the feeble hope that one ?day? in Genesis might mean not twenty-four hours but a hundred million years. These are hard-core ?young earth creationists? who believe that the universe and all of life came into existence within one week, less than 10,000 years ago. And Wise?flying valiantly in the face of reason, evidence, and education?is among them. If there were a prize for Virtuoso Believing (it is surely only a matter of time before the Templeton Foundation awards one) Kurt Wise, B.A. (Chicago), Ph.D. (Harvard), would have to be a prime candidate.

Wise stands out among young earth creationists not only for his impeccable education, but because he displays a modicum of scientific honesty and integrity. I have seen a published letter in which he comments on alleged ?human bones? in Carboniferous coal deposits. If authenticated as human, these ?bones? would blow the theory of evolution out of the water (incidentally giving lie to the canard that evolution is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific: J. B. S. Haldane, asked by an overzealous Popperian what empirical finding might falsify evolution, famously growled, ?Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian!?). Most creationists would not go out of their way to debunk a promising story of human remains in the Pennsylvanian Coal Measures. Yet Wise patiently and seriously examined the specimens as a trained paleontologist, and concluded unequivocally that they were ?inorganically precipitated iron siderite nodules and not fossil material at all.? Unusually among the motley denizens of the ?big tent? of creationism and intelligent design, he seems to accept that God needs no help from false witness.

All the more interesting, then, to read his personal testimony in In Six Days. It is actually quite moving, in a pathetic kind of way. He begins with his childhood ambition. Where other boys wanted to be astronauts or firemen, the young Kurt touchingly dreamed of getting a Ph.D. from Harvard and teaching science at a majo

 

Ender, do you just intentionally try to provoke or is it a natural unrealized gift?

How about this:

Instead of calling it a book of myths, why don't you say that you find it lacking and personally do not believe it. That would be granting the same respect for me and others that you ask for yourself.

Believe it or not, I know that science is not about disproving God. If you will read what I wrote you will see that I have questions about a technique we use. I do not rule it out, but I question it. Isn't that what I'm suppose to do? Haven't several people on this board said to question things? Hummmmmmm.......

 

Must be a talent?

I apologize for the myth comment. Remember as a Christian to never mock other Non-Abrahamic religions.

Forgive me for "questioning" your sources for science. Creationists are known to distort the truth. Especially the AIG people.

Here's another creationist talent:


Creationist Deception Exposed
Article published in The Skeptic, September 1998, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 7-10.

by Barry Williams

A small apprehension often lurks in the back of the mind of any Skeptic who has ever given an interview for later publication or broadcast; "What if the interviewer wants to show me, or the Skeptics, in a bad light?" With the technology now available to the media it would not be at all difficult to rearrange the words one has used to change one's meaning completely.

Perhaps we should mention here a little about the technicalities of the TV interview.

In any news or current affairs type interviews, pre-recorded outside a studio, a small technical deception is not uncommon. Normally only one video camera is used, and that camera is usually focused on the interviewee, but if the interview is played like that, with disembodied questions coming from `off camera', it tends to make the subjects look like they are talking to a wall. So, at the end of the interview, the camera changes places to focus on the interviewer, who then asks some of the questions again, or gives their reactions to something the interviewee has said. These are known as "reaction shots" (or "noddies" in the vernacular) and are designed to include the interviewer in the final product. This is technically a deception, but it is a harmless one used to make the segment more viewable. In documentaries, however, this quite often does not apply, and it is usual for the people speaking to be seen expounding their views without the intervention of interviewers.

Of course, in all such cases there must be an element of trust between the interviewee and the interviewer. It would be quite simple, technically, for the interviewer or the tape editor, to record a totally different set of questions and splice them together with the interviewee's answers, thus making the interviewee look like a complete idiot. However, to do so would be a gross breach of a journalist's professional ethics, and it doesn't happen often. Personally speaking, I have usually found that those ethical rules are scrupulously observed. I don't believe I have ever been misquoted, nor taken out of context, in the many interviews I have given, although I might sometimes feel that my main point has not received the prominence it deserves. That is only personal opinion, however, and usually good editing has often made my answers sound more coherent and less prolix than I am sure they deserved, and they have always retained the sense of what I said.

Some exception to the rule may be made in the case of comedy programmes, where some prominent identity is seen as giving answers to some question the host throws up, for example, his genuine answer to a complex economic question might be seen as a response to a query about his sex life (Clive James uses this to good effect in his late night talk show). This is all good clean fun and is hardly likely to cause the respondent any serious heartburn, because it can clearly be seen to be a deliberate manipulation of data for comic effect. That this is not always the case is exemplified by a recent experience of Richard Dawkins.

Richard Dawkins is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He is one of the world's leading evolutionary biologists, the author of several highly regarded books on evolution through natural selection, including The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker (to my mind, the very best explanation of evolution for the lay person), The Extended Phenotype, River out of Eden, Climbing Mount Improbable, and is constantly in demand as a public speaker, and by the media as an advocate for good science.

Given his position and his professional expertise, it is

 

On the subject of dinosaurs in Noah's Ark: Does it matter? Now, I know this sounds like a cheesy cop-out. But if you think about it logically, it really doesn't make that much of a difference. The Bible does seem to make references to dinosaur-like creatures (Job, Psalms), but I don't think all Christians will agree on the role of dinosaurs in their interaction with people. God, in His omnipotence, could easily have provided supernaturally for what could not be done naturally (in terms of the ark).

SnowDog

I'm assuming here, and correct me if I'm wrong, that this thread was opened to find some counterarguments to the alleged contradictions in the Bible... primarily so that the initiator of this thread could find some reassurance in their beliefs.

I'm not going to speak for G_M_M here. But for me, personally, arguing the validity of the Bible has nothing to do with finding "some reassurance" in my beliefs. Think of it this way: if I insult your mom, you're going to defend her against my accusations, because you love her, right? In the same way, Christians do this apologetics stuff because we love God, and we aren't exactly happy when people accuse Him (or His word). Also, on this note, doesn't it say something about what we believe that we are even willing to defend the Bible at all? If I had doubts, why would I argue with you in the first place?

The issue of whether or not anything in the Bible is actually true or accurate hs nothing to do with whether one chooses to believe or not.

Actually, yes, it does. Many times I have seen someone post "How can you believe that self-contradicting piece of crap?" or something similar. If we can point out that the Bible does not contain contradictions, there is a higher chance of someone being willing to believe it.

Hinging all your faith on the historical accuracy of a book makes absolutely no sense.

My faith doesn't hinge on the Bible alone. I've experienced His love and forgiveness, and I seek to find His will and teachings through the Bible.


"Why are the arguments against the validity of the historical accuracy of the Bible so compelling to me if I'm really convinced this is my path?"

Like I said... it's because I am willing to defend God - passionately.


Ender
Still quoting creationist bs, eh Palp?

Look... this comment wasn't even directed at me, but I find it offensive. Why is it that "creationist" is automatically associated with "bs"?

Jedi_Nailbiter:
Okay, so Jesus is the son of God. But hes not God. Hes a human. But then his mother is also human- with no connection to God. So the son of God, is the son of Mary, who isn't and isn't related to any God. And then you've this three way thing. A god, a son (whos not a God, just a son from another mother who is somehow THE son of god), and this spirit. So is this spirit also God? Is it a God? If all these make up God, then who is the God that is one of the three thigns that make up God. Please clarify.



No, Jesus is God. Jesus is also the Son of God. Jesus is also human. Jesus is also the son of Mary, who was chosen by God to be the earthly mother of His Son, who is God. It's called the Trinity, and it's summed up nicely in

John 1:1
"In the beginning was the Word [Jesus], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

I have said this before, and I'll say it again. The Trinity is something that many Christians don't try to understand, or pretend to understand. We accept it as something that is beyond our level of understanding. We believe that Jesus was 100% God and 100% man, and that as God, He was able to die for the sins of all mankind, and that as man, he was eligible to die for the sins of man. This isn't denial of logic. It's acceptance of the fact that hey, there might actually be something that human reasoning can't figure out.


Ender

When are you going to stop copy-pasting uber-long articles that you can't reasonably expect someone to read through? If I had time, I'd gladly r

 

That was an interesting article, i can't believe i read the whole thing!

But just to be naieve for a second, aren't "creationists" supposed to know the truth of Genesis because they read with the spirit and not the mind? If that's true, why would they need to use deceptive tactics to make their point? It's just hard for me to believe they have anything to gain by lying to people, i thought the bible was about truth and honesty.

"we aren't exactly happy when people accuse Him (or His word)."

I hope that's not a generalization of all the people here, questioning something doesn't mean you are accusing it of anything.

BTW, if you don't like long posts, don't read them. That's what the scroll bar is for. It was interesting to me, because i'm not really up on these scientific questions, and i really had no idea that there were political things involved between the two camps, creationists and evolutionists.

 

I hope that's not a generalization of all the people here, questioning something doesn't mean you are accusing it of anything.

Not all people. But a whole lot of people. I can understand questioning... "How come... Because it says here... How would you explain it?" But there's a difference between that and "Your Bible is so full of contradictions I can't believe you actually believe that crap." I mean, no one has said that directly, but it's pretty much implied.

BTW, if you don't like long posts, don't read them.

It's not that I don't like long posts... it's just that I want to know what Ender has to say, so I can respond to it, but a long post taken directly from another source is less appealing than if Ender had added some commentary, or even just done some mark-up and highlighted certain portions of his article.

 

When are you going to stop copy-pasting uber-long articles that you can't reasonably expect someone to read through?

I figure if I have to read the bible due to arguing with you then I figure turnabout is fair play.



Look... this comment wasn't even directed at me, but I find it offensive. Why is it that "creationist" is automatically associated with "bs"?

Because it usually is. Ever notice young earth creation science presents no theories of their own they just attack science?

I have no problem with Old Earth Creationists even though they have no theories either.

I should have put YEC bs, sorry.

 

I figure if I have to read the bible due to arguing with you then I figure turnabout is fair play.

But we don't quote entire chapters of the Bible... it's one or two verses. If you want to look up the context, that's up to you.


And as for YEC and OEC... this is another point where I (this is me, personally) don't think it really matters that much. I believe in a literal 7 day creation, but that doesn't completely rule out theistic evolution, or a billion-year-old earth, or whatever; that, as many people have pointed out, would be limiting God. How long ago or how He created doesn't matter. He created. I'm satisfied with that.

 

Actually, creationists do have considerable theories using science and the Bible. Maybe you should check into these theories.

 

Perhaps you could direct me to them?

 

But haven't you looked it up for yourself since you made the claim that they don't exist? Didn't you check before you said that?


I do not mean this offensively, butI'm not going to do your homework since you seem perfectly able of digging it up for yourself. Try and if you can't find anything, then I'll help you.

 

Since God is untestable, many rule him out.

How can we have a theory based upon design then if we can't test it?


But the bottom line is, if you don't believe that God can do whatever he wants outside of physical laws, then no evidence will convince you anyway.

Right, so there's no point in using science then if god can pull out the supernatural card.

 

Right, so there's no point in using science then if god can pull out the supernatural card.

Is it your belief, then, that everything can be explained by science?

 

Is it your belief, then, that everything can be explained by science?

Define everything for me please. I haven't seen an animal just "poof" into existence if that's what you mean?

Science doesn't explain everything. If it did all science would cease to be as we would know everything.

 

Hmm... let me word it this way. According to you, what can science explain? What are its limits?

 

Uh, I'm going to pull a Palpazzar and say go research for yourself. Oh, use science(the web) while you're at it.

 

Hey!

I'm asking you personally, though. I can't go find "Ender thinks..." elsewhere on the web. However, you're going to get a lot of time to think about it... because I have to go study for my Algebra II final (this is, of course, assuming that you want to answer it at all).

Night, all.

 

Pull a Palpazzar?

Ender, why don't you drop the personal attacks.

If I post a theory you would not believe it, so I suggested that you look for yourself so you could decide what was "biased". Forgive me if I trusted your critical thinking skills.


Creation theory is based upon science. It places processes in the context of Biblical accounts. We can't test God, but we can test his work.

"Right, so there's no point in using science then if god can pull out the supernatural card"
Do you think if there is a God he can pull a supernatural card? But yes, in a way. Not everything can be explained.

 

If I post a theory you would not believe it, so I suggested that you look for yourself so you could decide what was "biased". Forgive me if I trusted your critical thinking skills.

Yeah, that showed me how not to use personal attacks.


Creation theory is based upon science. It places processes in the context of Biblical accounts. We can't test God, but we can test his work.

A creation scientist statement from one of the above articles:


. . . try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two. I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible. . . . It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science.

See what I mean about pathetic? Most revealing of all is Wise?s concluding paragraph:

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.


Oh yeah, with scientists such as these at your disposal I'm sure we'll get some unbiased science as long as it goes along with scripture.

 

Don't bite me, I won't get sarcastic. But to the point, I don't personally find one man to be an authority on his own.

Very well. I will outline creationism very briefly tonight. YEC to be precise since OEC blends already.

The earth is created in a literal six days. At that time, animals and plants were created fully mature. All animals lived off of plants. They were protypical animals at this point.

When man sinned, the nature of the planet changed. Decay and entrophy set in. Animals began to eat each other. Most likely, radiation levels changed and affect the world.

When the flood was coming, there were still the prototypes, but they had probably diversified to a degree. These animals were brought on board the ark.

The flood changed much of the world. The principles of catastrophism take effect now. The animals caught in the flood become oil, rocks form the layers we see today, etc.

After the flood, the earth has aged artifically. But animals spread over what is still a united land mass. Later, that land mass is split. This is first told of in the Bible and wasn't 'discovered' until the 19th century ( I believe). Animals now begin diversifying even more in there new homes.

Of course there is scientific support for these principles. But the detail is too much for tonight.

 

Did Adam have a belly button?

 

No.

 

Creationists are known to distort the truth.


Are they Distorting the Truth or some theory about what the truth may be? You see I think some people get mixed up with what a Theory is. Theories can be wrong. It isn't 100% truth Just because no one has disproved it yet. Sure they may make sense and have evidence but there may be better answers for those facts than current theories. Creationists just do not except certain theories as fact. No one has actually witness or observed something evolving. As far as I know it is not something that can be reproduced in a lab somewhere.

My personal thoughts do not fit into either group. I think both have things right and both have some things wrong. That is just my own view. That said I think it is important we understand that a theory can be wrong. Including mine

 

Man, I leave you guys alone for a few hours and it's turned into a Creation vs Evolution thread. Sheesh!

Firstly, an apology to Darkside_Spirit. You were absolutely right - you made it quite clear at the start of your post that your comments were taken from another site. My mistake. Sorry that I came across as arrogant. Still friends?


Darth_SnowDog, no I didn't start this thread to get reassurance about my faith. I said right at the start what my objective was. I was annoyed with being told by people that the Bible's full of contradictions. So far, we're nearly a hundred posts in and there's been not one "contradiction" that can't be explained.


Darth Geist made a good point:
After watching Gladiator for the first time, I happened across an account of what really happened to the Roman Emperor Commodus; according to the book, he was poisoned at dinner, then strangled in the bathroom as he tried to vomit the poison out. More recently, I took a trip to Rome, and signed up for a guided tour of the Colosseum. Part of the tour guide's spiel featured the story of Commodus--only in this version of the story, Commodus ends up stabbed outside the Colosseum's gate. Having heard these two seemingly contradictory stories, it would appear I have two choices: Do I (a) assume one or both sources are in error, or (b) try to figure out a way that both stories could have happened? Perhaps Commodus was stabbed by his guards at the Colosseum, then staggered home, sat down to dinner, ate the poison and died in the bathroom? You see my point.

Yup, I see your point but I'll try to answer as best I can.

None of the books of the Bible record history for the sake of history. All 66 books have a point to them beyond recording the events just for historical purposes. In the books of Kings and Chronicles for example, it tells us what it needs to about the king in question, then says "as to the other things that this king did, they are written in the annals of the kings of Israel and Judah", which are of course not in the Bible.

We need to consider a verse from John as a general principle:

John 20:30-31 says:
Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

From this we can see that:

1] Not all the facts are included

2] The things that are included are there for a particular purpose (in this case to show Jesus as the Son of God)


When we read a book of the Bible straight through we get a clearer sense of the purpose. The books of Samuel and Kings cover a lot of the same ground as the books of Chronicles, but the perspective is different. Samuel and Kings focus on the characters and Chronicles was written at a time when the temple was being rebuilt so it focuses more on the spiritual side (eg Samuel and Kings tell us about David's adultery and Solomon's fall, which Chronicles doesn't, and Chronicles tells us about evil Manesseh's prayer of repentance which Kings doesn't.) That's why we get the information about it being Satan that incited David, that we don't get in Samuel and Kings.

Similarly the gospels each have a main purpose. John was to show Jesus as the Son of God made flesh. Maybe that's why he's the only one to mention Jesus carrying his own cross. As if to say "the Son of God was so humiliated when he was on earth that he even had to carry his own cross!" But Luke, for example, who concentrates much more on the humanity of Jesus mentions that Simon carried it for him after the journey to the cross had begun. As if to say "the Son of Man was so weary after all his beatings that only a short way into the journey, someone else had to carry his cross for him."


As John says right at the end of his gospel:

"Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be writ