Contradictions within the Bible???

Will a Christian please answer these contradictions? They seem to have been forgotten about:

"... with God all things are possible." -- Matthew 19:26

"...The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." -- Judges 1:19





"... I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." -- Genesis 32:30

"No man hath seen God at any time..."-- John 1:18





"... the earth abideth for ever." -- Ecclesiastes 1:4

"... the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." -- 2Peter 3:10





"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." -- Ezekiel 18:20

"I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation..." -- Exodus 20:5

 

Darth_OB1:

I wonder what God was doing when he was a fetus?

You could also ask, what was God doing while He was asleep? The thing we must remember is that we're dealing with a deity that exists outside of time. C.S. Lewis dealt with the problem well in his book, Mere Christianity.

Before I became a Christian one of my objections was as follows. The Christians said that the eternal God who is everywhere and keeps the whole universe going, once became a human being. Well then, said I, how did the whole universe keep going while He was a baby, or while He was asleep? How could He at the same time be God who knows everything and also a man asking his disciples, "Who touched me?" You will notice that the sting lay in the time words: "While He was a baby" -- "How could He at the same time?" In other words I was assuming that Christ's life as God was in time, and that His life as the man Jesus in Palestine was a shorter period taken out of that time -- just as my service in the army was a shorter period taken out of my total life. And that is how most of us perhaps tend to think about it. We picture God living through a period when His human life was still in the future: then coming to period when it was present: then going on to a period when He could look back on it as something in the past. But probably these ideas correspond to nothing in the actual facts. You cannot fit Christ's earthly life in Palestine into any time-relations with His life as God beyond all space and time. It is really, I suggest, a timeless truth about God that human nature, and the human experience of weakness and sleep and ignorance, are somehow included in His whole divine life. This human life in God is from our point of view a particular period in the history of our world (from the year A.D. one till the Crucifixion). We therefore imagine it is also a period in the history of God's own existence. But God has no history. He is too completely and utterly real to have one. For, of course, to have a history means losing part of your reality (because it had already slipped away into the past) and not yet having another part (because it is still in the future): in fact having nothing but the tiny little present, which has gone before you can speak about it. God forbid we should think God was like that. Even we may hope not to be always rationed in that way.

Disagree with the explanation if you must, but the explanation does exist.


Edit: Since Psychotic_Sith misunderstood what I was addressing, I've edited in the actual statement to which I am referring.

 

What are you talking about? Nobody ever asked what God was doing when he was asleep; and I, for one, don't care. Besides, that isn't a contradiction. God may be timeless, but He has contradicted himself several times.

I know that, according to you, the Bible is fallible; but shouldn't God be infallable? Then why does He contradict Himself in Ezekiel 18:20 and Exodus 20:5?

Please, answer my contradictions.

 

Disagree with the explanation if you must, but the explanation does exist.

Yeah in the form of a mans philosophy.

Col 2:8

 

Psychotic_Sith:

Will a Christian please answer these contradictions? They seem to have been forgotten about:

"... with God all things are possible." -- Matthew 19:26

"...The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." -- Judges 1:19

With all due respect, Darth_Viper81 already addressed a similar supposed contradiction, 5/17, 8:36am.

There's no inherent contradiction with those two verses. Judges 1:18 makes clear that Judah is the one doing most of the acting: "Also Judah took Gaza with the coast thereof, and Askelon with the coast thereof, and Ekron with the coast thereof."

That Judah could not drive out the valley's inhabitants does not imply any inability on God's part.


"... I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." -- Genesis 32:30

"No man hath seen God at any time..."-- John 1:18

If you read Gen. 32:30 in context, you will see that it does not correspond to an actual event where Jacob saw God face to face.

(If it did, you and your fellow skeptics would quote that verse instead of Jacob's proclamation, would you not?)

Jacob's proclamation -- since it is a proclamation and it does not correspond directly to a recorded event -- can be taken figuratively. Like the many references to God's face in the Psalms (e.g., 4:6, 10:11, 11:7), this reference is figurative.


"... the earth abideth for ever." -- Ecclesiastes 1:4

"... the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." -- 2Peter 3:10

Like much of Ecclesiastes, the opening section (1:2-11) is a poem, and artistic license is allowable. Let us look at the statement in context:

"A generation goes, and a generation comes,
but the earth remains forever."

Compared to the coming and going of humans, the earth is indeed permanent. It's a comparative permance, not an absolute permanence.


"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." -- Ezekiel 18:20

"I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation..." -- Exodus 20:5

I'll defer to Geisler's When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties.

PROBLEM: Ezekiel says clearly God does not punish the sons for their fathers? sins, but that ?the soul who sins shall die [for its own sins].? However, in Exodus 20:5 we are informed that God visits ?the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations.? These seem flatly contradictory.

SOLUTION: Ezekiel is speaking of the guilt of the father?s sin never being held against the sons, but Moses was referring to the consequences of the fathers? sins being passed on to their children. Unfortunately, if a father is a drunk, the children can suffer abuse and even poverty. Likewise, if a mother has contracted AIDS from drug use, then her baby may be born with AIDS. But, this does not mean that the innocent children are guilty of the sins of their parents.

Further, even if the Exodus passage implied that moral guilt was somehow also visited on the children, it would only be because they too, like their fathers, had sinned against God. Noteworthy is the fact that God only visits the iniquities of ?those who hate? Him (Ex. 20:5), not those who do not.

That final phrase, "those who reject me," has been omitted from your quote, Psychotic.

In at least two cases, your omission by ellipses helps obscure the meaning of the passage. In two other cases (Jacob's statement and the poem in Ecclesiastes), the context -- a quoted statement and a poem -- give the passage some leeway in terms of interpretation.

If I may quote the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics:

The most common mistake of all Bible interpreters, including some critical scholars, is to read a text outside its proper cont

 

darthOB1, do you care to explain how the explanation is off-base, or do you simply want to cite Scripture that may or may not apply?


Psychotic:

What are you talking about? Nobody ever asked what God was doing when he was asleep; and I, for one, don't care. Besides, that isn't a contradiction. God may be timeless, but He has contradicted himself several times.

I know that, according to you, the Bible is fallible; but shouldn't God be infallable? Then why does He contradict Himself in Ezekiel 18:20 and Exodus 20:5?

Please, answer my contradictions.

You will notice, I have answered your supposed contradictions. I was in the middle of typing that reply when you, in your impatience, decided to ask me to answer them -- when, I might add, you first addressed your question to us Christians and not me specifically.

When, pray tell, have I said that the Bible is fallible? On the contrary, I made a good case for why I believe it is inerrant -- that is, infallible.

And, if you're going to get snippy about my posts, I'll pay you in kind.

Please, respond to my post about the Transfiguration. Do you still think it happened the same day as the promise? Do you still think it's merely an act of levitation?

 

"... with God all things are possible." -- Matthew 19:26

"...The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." -- Judges 1:19

That translation is a bit misleading. In the NASB, arguably the best translation out there, it reads: "Now the LORD was with Judah, and they took possession of the hill country; but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had iron chariots."

In other words, it was Judah, not God, who could not drive out the inhabitants. Now, is this a weakness on God's part, or on man's, and simply a case where God allowed them to take possession, but not drive out the inhabitants for whatever purpose? I would go with the latter. In any case, it is more accurately translated that Judah, not God, was not able to drive out the inhabitants. No contradiction.


"... I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." -- Genesis 32:30

"No man hath seen God at any time..."-- John 1:18

In cases like these, it is sometimes best to go to the original language. The Hebrew word for God used in Genesis is 'elohiym. The word can often refer to false gods, or groups of powerful persons or entities. However, it is used all throughout the Old Testament to refer to YHWH. It is of plural form. This means it refers to the Trinity as a whole, not just the Father.

The Greek word for God in John is theos. Like its Old Testament counterpart, it is often used to refer to a false god, or "lesser" god, or a very powerful person or entity.

Having said that, here's the entire verse of John 1:18, in context:

John 1
18 No one has seen God [theos, the Father] at any time; the only begotten God [theos, the Son] who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

I will be honest and say this my my own interpretation, but then, that's what most of the explanations here are. In Genesis, Jacob wrestled with the Word of God, part of 'elohiym, the Trinity. After all, as I theorized before, that is the physical aspect of YHWH. It is the only form in theory that Jacob COULD wrestle with.

In John, he was saying no one except Jesus, the Word of God, has seen the Father. Both are theos, 'elohiym, but both are different aspects. No one has seen the Father except the Son, but plenty of people throughout time have seen the Son, and lived. No contradiction.

"... the earth abideth for ever." -- Ecclesiastes 1:4

"... the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." -- 2Peter 3:10

This is one of the few translational errors that can affect doctrine. This word, Dowr, translated "forever", is also translated "generation" in the very same verse. The actual definition of the word is "period", "age", "generation", and "habitation". This can lead into the idea that people exist in the lake of fire forever, because it has a New Testament counterpart that is actually a little ambiguous in terms of length of time.

In other words, it is a mistranslation. "A generation [Dowr] goes and a generation comes, but the earth abideth forever [Dowr (period, age)]." Basically, Solomon was saying people are born and they die, but the earth goes on like it always has. No contradiction.

"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." -- Ezekiel 18:20

"I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation..." -- Exodus 20:5

This is a matter of misinterpretation. Iniquity doesn't mean punishment. It means guilt, having to do with breaking God's Law. The parents' guilt of breaking God's Law won't pass to their children. However, sometimes the punishment does as well as the sin itself. (This can be observed with someone who grows up in an abuseive household or where someone is an alcoholic and grows to follow in their footsteps.) No cont

 

I'm just firing out what I see as contradictions. Christians, please do your best to refute them.

From humanist.net


One reason that Humanists consider the Bible to be an unreliable authority is that it contains a multitude of contradictions. Logically, if two statements contradict each other, at least one of them must be false. Because numerous Bible verses flatly contradict other verses, it follows that the Bible has many false statements and is not infallible.

Examples of Old Testament Contradictions

The contradictions start in the opening two chapters of the Bible, where inconsistent accounts of the creation are propounded. Genesis chapter 1 states that the first man and woman were made at the same time, and after the animals. But Genesis chapter 2 says that the order of creation was as follows: man, then the animals, and then woman.

Additionally, Genesis chapter 1 tells of six days of creation, whereas chapter 2 refers to the "day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." Chapter 1 asserts that the fruit trees were created before man, while chapter 2 indicates that those trees were made after man. Genesis 1:20 states that the fowl were created out of the waters; nevertheless, Genesis 2:19 alleges that they were formed out of the ground. Genesis 1:2-3 avers that God created light and divided it from darkness on the first day, but Genesis 1:14-19 reports that the sun, moon and stars were not made until the fourth day.

Contradictions also abound in the biblical account of a worldwide flood. Genesis 6:19-22 says that God ordered Noah to bring "of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort . . . into the ark." Genesis 7:2-3 states, however, that the Lord ordered Noah take into the ark the clean beasts and the birds by sevens and the unclean beasts by twos.

Genesis 7:17 relates that the flood lasted forty days, whereas Genesis 8:3 tells us it lasted one hundred and fifty days. Genesis 8:4 reports that, as the waters of the flood receded, Noah's ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat in the seventh month. But the very next verse asserts that the mountaintops could not even be seen until the tenth month. Genesis 8:13 states that the earth was dry on the first day of the first month; contrariwise, Genesis 8:14 reports that the earth was not dry until the twenty-seventh day of the second month.

The Old Testament contains a significant contradiction in the story of the census taken by King David and God's subsequent punishment of the Israelites. According to the tale, God was so angered by the census that he sent a plague that killed seventy thousand men. At II Samuel 24:1, the Lord is said to be the one who caused David to take the census. But an attempt was made later, at I Chronicles 21:1, to expunge God's record on this matter by claiming that Satan incited the census.

The Old Testament is further contradictory as to whether the Lord commanded the Israelites to sacrifice animals to him. According to Jeremiah 7:22, God denied that he ever gave the Israelites commandments about animal sacrifices. In contrast, Exodus 29:38-42 and many other verses in the Pentateuch clearly depict God as requiring the Israelites to offer animal sacrifices.

Examples of New Testament Contradictions

Turning to the New Testament, there are contradictions between the genealogy of Jesus given in the first Chapter of Matthew and the genealogy contained in the third chapter of Luke. Both genealogies list Jesus' father as being Joseph (which is curious, given that Mary was supposedly impregnated by the Holy Ghost), but Matthew states that the name of Joseph's father was Jacob, while Luke identifies him as Heli. Matthew reports that there were twenty-six generations between Jesus and King David, whereas Luke claims that there were forty-one. Matthew alleges that Jesus' line of descent was through David's son Solomon, while Luke says that it was through David's son Nathan.

In the story of the birth of Jesus, Matthew 2:13-15 relates that Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt w

 

darthOB1, do you care to explain how the explanation is off-base, or do you simply want to cite Scripture that may or may not apply?

Sorry Bubba. I really would rather not since this really gets into stuff that are off topic and not relevant to our common belief that the bible is solid and contradition-less!


But I will say this that the scripture definitly applies!

 

Fair enough, DarthOB1, but I think there's nothing wrong with bringing in philosophy as long as philosophy remains subservient to Christ. As Paul put it in that very passage, "the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily" in Christ, and any internally coherent philosophy that explains that reality should be okay. I think Paul was preaching against philosophy that replaced the belief in the deity of Christ, not philosophy that relied on His deity.


But I digress.



Psychotic, you want us Christians to do our best to refute, not contradictions that you find in your studies of the Bible, but contradictions that other people list, from such biased sources as humanist.net?

You want us to spend what will amount to hours refuting what took you 30 seconds to cut-and-paste from someone else's site?

All the while, you'll continue to ignore the fact that we've already rebutted several of your contradictions? And act as if you haven't struck out every time you've come to the plate so far?

I don't think so.

Christians or not, we're human beings with our own lives. I'll speak for no one else, but if you don't have the time to do research on your end, I'm not going to waste my time doing research to respond.

 

Bubba, I don't think it matters if a retard in sixth grade missing one leg found the contradiction, it IS A CONTRADICTION. I have neither the time nor the patience to hunt down contradictions in the Bible, when I could be out living my life {something a lot of Christians seem to hold in contempt}. The only reason I bother coming to the Senate in the first place is because I'm burnt out on Star Wars.

Please; either refute them or recognize they are contradictions. You are simply taking the "easy way out".

 

Genesis 7:17 relates that the flood lasted forty days, whereas Genesis 8:3 tells us it lasted one hundred and fifty days. Genesis 8:4 reports that, as the waters of the flood receded, Noah's ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat in the seventh month. But the very next verse asserts that the mountaintops could not even be seen until the tenth month. Genesis 8:13 states that the earth was dry on the first day of the first month; contrariwise, Genesis 8:14 reports that the earth was not dry until the twenty-seventh day of the second month.

You really need to research these a little bit at least before you post this garbage!

agrees 100% with Bubba!


It rained for 40 days. 150 days later was when the first bit of land appeared after the water began to receed.

You do the math on the rest.

 

It rained for 40 days. 150 days later was when the first bit of land appeared after they began to receed.

PPOR. I can't find my Bible; and that isn't even my works to begin with. I'm simply asking you what you think of these contradictions.

And, even if that is wrong, this is still a contradiction:

Genesis 8:4 reports that, as the waters of the flood receded, Noah's ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat in the seventh month. But the very next verse asserts that the mountaintops could not even be seen until the tenth month.

 

try looking uop the very scriptures you cited and read them in context with, lets say the first two scriptures before and after. That should do.

 

Just a little note to everyone in the thread who doesn't have access to a bible nearby:

You can look up and read just about any version of the bible you want here.

Actually, it would be helpful if you used the site and provided a direct link to the scripture you are referencing and save us all some time.

Just a heads up that will make this discussion smoother.

EDIT: changed the link for a more direct link to the bible translations.

EDIT2: changed it back because my editted link screwed up. *SIGH*

EDIT3: ARGh!!! It should work now.

 

That link is broken, Viper.

EDIT: Works now. Give me a day or two, and I'll see what I can find. Meanwhile, please analyze the current contradictions.

 

Genesis 8:4 reports that, as the waters of the flood receded, Noah's ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat in the seventh month. But the very next verse asserts that the mountaintops could not even be seen until the tenth month.

can you say research?

Arrarat is the tallest mountain around that area. It obviously appeared first. The other mountains around (still underwater because they were smaller) took longer to appear above the water.

See how simple it is to de-bunk something that is baseless!

 

The Senate is not a forum for simply cutting and pasting the arguments of others. If you aren't willing to take part in a discussion, don't participate. Do not simply cut and paste other web sites into the thread.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Psychotic_Sith has made himself look rather idiotic. The cut-and-paste technique is annoying in itself, but might be acceptable if it weren't used for vast lists of alleged contradictions that couldn't possibly all be dealt with at once.

If there are so many contradictions, then you have plenty of choice in selecting one or two for discussion. Bombarding us with hundreds of supposed inconsistencies, while previous ones remain to be dealt with, does not help your argument.

This is plainly a debate, so your comment that the list "isn't even my works [sic] to begin with" is no excuse. If you don't want to discuss arguments, don't post them.

On a final note, quote the verses explicitly rather than just repeating humanist.net's interpretation of them. Your Genesis 8:4-5 point is made nonsense of by simply quoting the verses:

...and in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest upon the mountains of Ar'arat. And the waters continued to abate until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen. (Gen 8:4-5 RSV)

It is plainly obvious that for the ark to rest on the mountains is not the same as the tops of the mountains being visible. In the first circumstance, the mountaintops can still be covered by a depth of water nearly as great as the Ark's height.

Indeed, it would be highly surprising if the mountaintops could be seen before the ark rested on them, since that would require it to have the power of levitation. The Ark coming to rest, then the mountaintops being seen, is absolutely what we'd expect to happen.

 

I find this debate amusing.

To me, the very idea of the Bible being "inerrant" is (as I feel about most things in "fundamental" religiousity) laughable.

Of course it is filled with errors. Come on. Seriously.

It's a book of old texts. Manuscripts written by a whole bunch of pseudo-literate 1st century propagandists (face it, with the pain to actually write something down in the 1st century or before, the person writing it down really wanted it written for some reason or other).

What baffles me is still why someone clings to literal or inerrant biblical belief.

Science has pretty much killed "literal" belief in so many places.

I can pretty much not understand how a apparently sane, intelligent, grown up human, cannot comprehend that so much of the Bible is obvious parable and moral tale, anyway. That a person able to walk straight, keep a paying job, and tie his shoelaces can actually think that Genesis should be taken as literal truth.

That is so absurd, so alien, so totally incomprehensible to me, I don't know how to describe it.

And many "former literalists" has been dragged, kicking and screaming, out of their little sheltered world of fairy-tale interpretation of the world, but instead surely squatted themselves on the next plot, labelled "inerrancy". "Okay", they say, "so maybe it's not all literal, but it sure is correct!".

Why oh why?

I see no reason for this incessanse on inerrancy. It's just a rung lower on the ladder of insanity below literalism.

I dont get it. I truly don't.

As Bubba himself showed, even 3 different biographies of a late American president hold ton of contradiction and error. Of course.

The true scolar sees the errors, and triest to extrapolate to the best of his abilities, a probable middle-ground, based on the available information. How many sources agree on something? What sources take from where? Which source is closer to the original source, and so on.

What kind of mistakes are probable, keeping the transcription and data-transfer modes in mind.

What kind of (over?)simplification and omissions has been done, both in the scriptural and verbal "editorial" process?

What core data remains NON-contradictory? What external sources corroborate what, and so on.

I truly don't understand how a intelligent person such as Bubba, who on one hand gives a great speech on the difficulty of 1st century writing and oral traditions, then turn around and still randomly and arbitraily claim the document "inerrant", based on nothing but the documents own (highly dubious, naturally) claim of such, and that he really really wishes this to be so!

Why can't people such as Bubba simply accept the Bible for what it is, and lay ridiculous notions of "literal" and "inerrant" interpretations aside, and RELLLY roll your sleeves up to get to the ACTUAL core of the data.

Frankly, never have I seen so much intellectual capacity going to waste as to actually try to explain Biblical contradictions.

Sure, many "skeptics" are pretty ridicolous in the "contradiction hunting", I'm the first to admit, taking literal poetic descriptions, and out-of-contexting a lot of stuff.

But actually trying to sit down and seriously try to reconcile the two largely-different creation accounts (which both, IMHO, should be taken as "quaint tales of what 1st century people may have believed the origin of the world is" and nothing more) and actually waste neurons to try to come up with an elaborate timeline and various "free interpretations" to reconcile the two?

It's like the debate over Jesus last words, which I find amusing at best.

He probably said all sorts of junk. Was everybody there at the end? Surely not. Would the information, if passed among excited peasant orally for a while, retain the info? Of course not.

But more importantly, would a writer, wanting to make a cool story, take a bit of poetic licence in coming up with a cool "last words" phrase? You betcha.

Especi

 

Of course it is filled with errors. Come on. Seriously.

It was a nice speech, really, but I didn't find a shred of proof in there.

Now, I'm not saying that there aren't any errors in the bible. I just would rather see some PPOR--which by the way, for the rest of the people in this thread, has been laughable at best thus far.

It humors me to find people who harp on "christian" people for not thinking or taking things out of context, and then in the next breath, not only cut and paste thoughts that are not their own, but take them unbelievably out of context to the point at which the only response needed is to post the entire context of the verse and bold the parts that debunk the contradiction.

It really is a poor pop shot at the christian people who post here.

Perhaps before posting you all will actually think about it first. Perhaps even go to the website I posted and read the scirpture in context. I mean, for about 90% of those contradictions you find on anti-christian websites, all you have to do is the read the scripture in context.

Then, if you STILL think it's a contradiction, then post it here and state why it's a contradiction.

For instance, I don't know if this is a contradiction or not, but I've ALWAYS questioned the meaning of this verse:

Romans 9:

"13 As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." 14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16 So it depends not upon man's will or exertion, but upon God's mercy. 17 For the scripture says to Pharaoh, "I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth." 18 So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills. 19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" 20 But who are you, a man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me thus?" 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for the vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?"

My question on this has always been: WHY? Why does it sound like God makes certain people just to damn them? If he does make them for the purpose of "showing his glory", do they get punished in hell for it? And my last question, God said he HATED Esau. I will never understand that, how God supposedly loves everyone, but HATED Esau.

I don't bring this up as a contradiction, but it's been a question that I've had for a long time. Perhaps somebody could it explain it to me.

 

Beware: Because Zap will now lecture you on how why questions are irrelevant and meaningless!





In the Scriptures the word ?hate? has several shades of meaning. It may denote intense hostility, sustained ill will often accompanied by malice. Such hate may become a consuming emotion seeking to bring harm to its object. ?Hate? may also signify a strong dislike but without any intent to bring harm to the object, seeking instead to avoid it because of a feeling of loathing toward it.
The Bible also employs the word ?hate? to mean loving to a lesser degree.

Gods hate of Esau falls into the latter.

 

I also find the idea that the Bible is inerrant "laughable" (although I would try to use more temperate language). That, however, is because there is, in my view, no evidence to support the belief that the Bible is one hundred percent reliable, and it is irrational to hold a belief in the absence of supporting evidence.

However, to MasterZap's detriment, it is even more irrational to take notice of the "argument from personal incredulity", which asserts that something must be false just because your human brain--naturally conditioned to cope with the normal range of events and experiences in a 70-odd-year lifespan--finds it hard to cope with. To say "Of course it is filled with errors. Come on. Seriously" is the most meaningless argument that can possibly be conceived.

Master Zap "can pretty much not understand how a [sic] apparently sane, intelligent, grown up human, cannot comprehend that so much of the Bible is obvious parable and moral tale, anyway." This is astoundingly arrogant. Because a person accepts ideas that you personally find incredulous, it's a marvel they can even "walk straight, keep a paying job". Such egotistical nonsense ought really to have no place on this board.

Take evolution. The fact that humans find it incredulous emotionally only adds to the weight of evidence behind it--natural selection would, after all, disfavour an animal with a 50-year lifespan and a mind wired up to deal with events that happen over, or only once in, millions of years. A personal "it's nonsense" feeling is no basis for rational discussion.

 

Take evolution.

For the love of god, NO! Let's not even use that as an example of anything in this thread. The evolution topic has derailed so many threads here in the senate that it's ridiculous. Hence, why I feel it should be allowed as it's own seperate topic, despite the flaming and baiting that happens within it.

It comes up time and again and takes a lot of good discussion completely off topic. Hence, should a mod want to allow an evolution thread in the senate, by all means open the one in my bio back up.

 

"argument from personal incredulity"

But it isn't; It's simple "argumentum ad obviatum" I.e. stating the obvious.

Every book has errors, small, or large.

Old books from dubious sources have more.

Old books from dubious sources known to include verbal transmission even more so.

Pretending one "magic" book disobeys this simple statistical analysis requires extraordinary proof, none which have been presented outside of the very book being debated itself, i.e. beyond tautological circle-hopping.

/Z