Bible Fallacies

[laska]

I've got a Bible contradiction that I think is fairly unshakeable:

Examine Mark Chapter 10, verses 2-12:



Note that Jesus is referring to Deuteronomy 24 with regard to the precept of Moses. But here's the rub: Jesus just said that another part of the Bible was written not by God, but by a man, expressly against the timeless law of God.

It seems to me to be pretty clear that if any part of the Bible is shown to be expressly against God's law, then any part of it could be and we wouldn't necessarily know.

Also (though not specifically a contradiction), see Corinthian 7:12, in which Paul claims to be writing; he mentions specifically that he's not relaying any message he got from God.

It is my belief the best way to understand the scriptures is to strive to get the same spirit that inspired the original authors. In a text that obviously has scribal and translational errors, where the prophets themselves may at times be giving their own opinion and not always speaking under the inspiration of the spirit, and where there could be multiple interpretations I think this is the only sure way, prayer and personal revelation from God.

 

[tecoyah]

It is my belief the best way to understand the scriptures is to strive to get the same spirit that inspired the original authors. In a text that obviously has scribal and translational errors, where the prophets themselves may at times be giving their own opinion and not always speaking under the inspiration of the spirit, and where there could be multiple interpretations I think this is the only sure way, prayer and personal revelation from God.

If only all Christians developed a similar understanding....this would be a far more pleasant world. For they would eventually come to accept that everyone is correct, and there is no reason to kill each other over the interpretation of ancient scripture.

 

[steen]

I have some time this morning and I guess I'll add a few thoughts on the Flood questions. One scenario is that it was a limited flood, the language that the waters covered all the earth and that every living creature was on the ark was from Noah's perspective.

But that would mean that what actually was written down wasn't true. So people who claim that every word of the bible is true and factual they must be wrong.

.... So basically I do not know if a global flood really took place, whether it is just a literary device to teach spiritual principles, or if it was a limited flood.

But reality is that the lietarl description in the Bible doesn't match reality.

The spiritual message is what seems important

Indeed. So the claims about what the bible specifically says about science, history and whatnot that is rather irrelvant.

 

[steen]

Is Pi=3.0? It is according to the Bible

 

[ashurbanipal]

It is my belief the best way to understand the scriptures is to strive to get the same spirit that inspired the original authors. In a text that obviously has scribal and translational errors, where the prophets themselves may at times be giving their own opinion and not always speaking under the inspiration of the spirit, and where there could be multiple interpretations I think this is the only sure way, prayer and personal revelation from God.

I think the Bible ought to be taken as any other myth cycle. It's fiction, but it's powerful fiction that can teach us something about being alive and being human. Taking it any other way (i.e. as the infalible word of God) leads to gross error.

 

[laska]

But that would mean that what actually was written down wasn't true. So people who claim that every word of the bible is true and factual they must be wrong.

One of the 13 articles of faith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is that "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly."


.... So basically I do not know if a global flood really took place, whether it is just a literary device to teach spiritual principles, or if it was a limited flood.

Re-reading what I wrote here I stated something I really do not believe. I am confident that their was an actual flood just not positive whether it was global or limited.

But reality is that the lietarl description in the Bible doesn't match reality.

I personally think aspects of it were meant to be taken literally, other aspects symbolically. I believe the prophets were real historical figures, they really did speak with God and have the heavens opened to them, the Israelites really were in Egyptian bondage, God really did part the Red sea, Christ was born of a virgin, etc. I tend to believe that Adam being created out of dust and Eve from Adam's rib is symbolic. I believe the scriptures are not only historical but really good history with any mistakes due to translation and scribal problems. As far as it going against science, every argument I have heard is either from a strawman argument where they imply an interpretation to the text that is not necessarily there and then bash the text as unscientific or use a poor methodology where they state it is impossible for this or that miracle when human knowledge is incomplete.

 

[George_Washington]

If only all Christians developed a similar understanding....this would be a far more pleasant world. For they would eventually come to accept that everyone is correct, and there is no reason to kill each other over the interpretation of ancient scripture.

That may sound real dandy and all but the truth is that not all Christian denominations interpret the Bible in a way that reflects God's message and truth. For example, some Christian Churches teach that in order to go to Heaven, you have to accept Christ and that no other kind of salvation is possible, despite how many good works a person might do. However, I think that a person can still get to Heaven by doing good works and being kind to others, despite not being a Christian.

There are also, sadly, Christian Churches out there that refuse to look at the Bible from any sort of analytical viewpoint and sort of, "bury their heads in the sand" as to the meanings of scripture.

Some Christian Churches don't believe in purgatory, for example.

I could go on but my point is that I do not believe that all Christian denominations are correct.

 

[Mike 1967]

I think the Bible ought to be taken as any other myth cycle. It's fiction, but it's powerful fiction that can teach us something about being alive and being human. Taking it any other way (i.e. as the infalible word of God) leads to gross error.

This is exactly why I personally find archeaological evidence to be important. Archeaology continues to back up the Bibles claims.

We have ancient Biblical manuscripts that are dated within 70 years of the Death of Christ. Those manuscripts match todays manuscripts.

I don't see how this allows for a "myth cycle" to creep into the text

 

[Mike 1967]

That may sound real dandy and all but the truth is that not all Christian denominations interpret the Bible in a way that reflects God's message and truth. For example, some Christian Churches teach that in order to go to Heaven, you have to accept Christ and that no other kind of salvation is possible, despite how many good works a person might do. However, I think that a person can still get to Heaven by doing good works and being kind to others, despite not being a Christian.

There are also, sadly, Christian Churches out there that refuse to look at the Bible from any sort of analytical viewpoint and sort of, "bury their heads in the sand" as to the meanings of scripture.

Some Christian Churches don't believe in purgatory, for example.

I could go on but my point is that I do not believe that all Christian denominations are correct.

Romans speaks to this question directly .

The first 4 chapters cover this question exclusively.

3: 20: For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin

3:29 - For we hold that one is justifed by faith apart from works...


James also makes it clear that works is the outpouring of Faith. Works is the evidence of the saving faith which results in salvation....but works in and of itself does not result in salvation.

If there is an All Powerful infinite God who is perfect in Love and Justice....then all men, on thier own merit, stand condemned. "For all men have sinned and fall short of the glory of God".

Have you ever lied ? Stolen ? Lusted after a woman ? (Jesus tells us that if you look upon woman with lust then you have committed adultry in your heart.) Have you ever taken the Lords name in vain (used it as a common cuss word ?

If you have done any of these things, then you stand condemned and will spend eternity in hell...unless you turn to Christ in Faith.

Any man who interprets something different out of the Bible has misenterpreted the message in the Bible.

 

[tecoyah]

I could go on but my point is that I do not believe that all Christian denominations are correct.

Whereas, I think they are all correct....in the minds of those who belong...more power to 'em. Just dont get off by telling me I cant be correct as well. Honestly....if Christians wish to beat each other up over the way they all read the same freakin' books....I really dont care...to each there own.

Thats half the reason I dont claim to be a follower anymore, not because of the books...because of the people.

 

[laska]

Tecoyah, I agree somewhat with what you say, not on moral relativism but as far as the people. It seems to me in much of the religious world the spirit of the religion is missing, charity and tolerance (I do not possess these qualities as abundantly as I should. I have met many people though who do and they give me hope for myself and in mankind.) In my view the N.T. is a treatise on who needs the most repentance and it is the religious people who claim to be the most faithful followers of the religion and strive to live the outward appearances of the laws, but inside do not possess the spirit of the religion or understand the purpose of the laws in the first place. The laws are not meant to condemn and hate people who do not follow them but are given because of God's unconditional love for humanity and He wants to warn us of thoughts and behavior that will lessen our joy. The modern day "scribes and pharicess" feel they are better because they obey the outward laws and they hate others who they percieve as evil. The hatred and pride are far worse sins then not obeying these outward laws. Jesus loved all people no matter how they lived and just tried to lift them up and show them the wisdom in obeying the commandments so that they could enhance their joy. Jesus told the woman caught in adultery that almost was stoned that he did not condemn her but then he added not to sin anymore.

It is my belief that any interpretation of the scripture, mine included, should not be stated as fact unless you recieve direct revelation from God that it is true. I believe in tolerance for other beliefs but I do not believe in moral relativism.

The following promise from the Book of Mormon establishes th LDS methodology in determining absolute truth:

Moroni 10:4
4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
Moroni 10:5
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.


Here are a couple of the 13 articles of faith from Joseph Smith that you may like:

11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.


13 We believ in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

 

[ashurbanipal]

This is exactly why I personally find archeaological evidence to be important.

I'm glad you find archaeology to be important.

Archeaology continues to back up the Bibles claims.

Three points:

1) Only tangentially. The archaeology that has shown the Bible to be an accurate history is little and far between. Most of the events we would have expected to have left evidence so far do not seem to have done so.

2) Some claims, such as the exodus from Egypt, have been shown to be incorrect, or at least in dispute. There was an egyptian stele that told an entirely different story of the exodus.

3) There's a sharp distinction to be made between historical claims, theological claims, magical claims, and mytholgical claims. Historical claims need not, and do not, support the other three.

We have ancient Biblical manuscripts that are dated within 70 years of the Death of Christ. Those manuscripts match todays manuscripts.

Again, three points:

1) We have manuscripts of some of the books of the Bible that are that early. Not all, not even the majority.

2) They match today's native-language copies. They don't match translations. If you try to read the Bible in English, you really have no idea what it says. As an exercise, get the JPS (Jewish Publication Society) translation of the Tanakh (if you don't know what the Tanakh is, get a Rabbi to school you). Look at the footnotes and see how many times a passage is marked as "Meaning of Hebrew unknown."

3) So what? All myth cycles extant today had to be written at some point. If we happen to possess one that was copied within a few decades of its origin, why does this make it any more literal?

I don't see how this allows for a "myth cycle" to creep into the text

Perhaps my remarks will enlighten you.

 

[kal-el]

In a limited flood, it would have killed everything in the coverage area of the flood. From Noah's perspective all things on the earth had been destroyed.

Good thought, but according to "god" he killed everything.

Genesis 6:7
So the lord said, "I will wipe mankind, from whom I have created, from the face of the earth- men and animals, creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air- for I am grieved that I had made them.

In Genesis the Euphrates was one of the rivers mentioned in the area of the garden of Eden. I think many people may assume this is the same river that is in Mesopotamia. Noah very well could have lived on the Mississippi river which may have been the Genesis' Euphrates, and when he arrived in or near Mesopotamia he or his descendants named the modern Euphrates after the ancient one.

Ok, I'll buy that, but that dosen't explain the numerous other holes in the Noah's ark farracy.

The LDS scriptural text teaches that the earth had become filled with violence at the time of Noah. Noah prophesied for many years pleading with the people to repent or the Flood would be sent. The people didn't believe him. If Noah did hire out some labor, I am sure they just took the money and thought he was just a superstitious, silly man.

That's more "blind postualtions". The bible mentions no such thing. He just says make yourself. It shouldn't be up for debate; if god is indeed perfect.

If omnipotent you mean to do the impossible then it is not the way I see this. It is my belief the miracles that are in the scriptures, the ones that are not just literary device to be interpreted symbolically, are only miracles because we do not understand all the laws that govern nature. Who is to say a thousand years from now any fourth grade chemistery student will be able to turn water into wine. If you lived in the ancient world, would you have stated it was impossible that one day a man would be sent to the moon, or have cell phones, and television? It was impossible then but the fact is that it has happened. I think it is poor methodology to state that these miracles are impossible.

who is to say a few thousand years from now any firth grade chemistry student will be able to turn water into wine.- I'm not doubting this at all, but only the ignorant would chalk it up to "divine" abilites. They surley will be able to, but because of science. Miracles, are all behind one's perception. If you would go back in lets say, the 50's, with a cell phone, everyone would think you are perfrming a miracle. If in the time of Jesus, you landed in an airplane, people at that time, who never saw such phenomena, would think you are a "god".

 

[kal-el]

Here are some more discrepencies I have found. It seems there are some 10 verses that say that Jesus is God, and 6 that claim he is not, which is it?

Jesus is God?


Jn.1:1

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God and the bird bird bird the bird is the word"

Jn.1:14

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us."

Jn.8:58

"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."

Jn.10:30-31

"I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him."

Jn.10:38-39

"The Father is in me, and I in him. Therefore they sought again to take him."

Jn.20:28

"And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God."

Col.2:8-9

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

Titus 2:13

"Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ."

Phil.2:6

" Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God."

Heb.1:8

"But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom."

Rev.1:17

"Fear not; I am the first and the last." Didn't Brett the Hitman Hart say that?

Rev.22:13

"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last."

Jesus is not god?

Jn.8:40

"But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God."

Jn.14:28

"My Father is greater than I."

Acts 17:31

"Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead."

1 Cor.11:3

"The head of Christ is God."

Col.3:1

"Christ sitteth on the right hand of God."

1 Tim.2:5

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

 

[Donkey1499]

Superman is not God:

JO 5:69 - "I am Sparticus!"

SM 2:107 - "No damn it! I'm Sparticus!!!"

GA 7:1 - "You guys are smokin' some serious shiz! Cuz I'm Sparticus!!!"

FU 55:1642 - "You guys can be Sparticus all you want, cuz I'm Superman. And Superman can kick your flabby a$$, Sparticus!!!", Said KlarK Kent.

 

[kal-el]

Superman is not God:

JO 5:69 - "I am Sparticus!"

SM 2:107 - "No damn it! I'm Sparticus!!!"

GA 7:1 - "You guys are smokin' some serious shiz! Cuz I'm Sparticus!!!"

FU 55:1642 - "You guys can be Sparticus all you want, cuz I'm Superman. And Superman can kick your flabby a$$, Sparticus!!!", Said KlarK Kent.

That was awesome. I'm pretty sure there's some underage discussion forums around, you should seriously think about joining up.

 

[Donkey1499]

That was awesome. I'm pretty sure there's some underage discussion forums around, you should seriously think about joining up.

Oh, were you offended by that? And what would you consider "underage"? No one is the final authority on what's comedy and what isn't. Hell, even rape can be funny. Just imagine Porky Pig trying to rape Elmer Fudd. That's dark bedroom humor, but some might think it funny. Besides, you're one sided (like most on here, even me I admit). You can joke about religion, but if someone makes a crack on SuperMan out of the blue, you gotta make some smart "underage" remark.

And I'll tell ya something else. It took me a whole minute and a half to type that. So I wasted MY time to bring a smile on others faces, but no. You gotta ruin MY fun with your smart a$$ remarks, like Ghandi<Bush. Lighten up pal! WWSD? [What Would Superman Do?]

 

[laska]

Kal-el, when I look at a complex mathematical theorem all I see is a bunch of numbers and squigglies. The mathmetician that looks at the same theorem sees things through different eyes because he has a different level of understanding than I do. If I had a love of mathmatics, a humble attitude that would allow me to be teachable, and put in the effort and study required to gain a different level of perspective, the theorem now looks totally different to me. It is not a bunch of inconsistent numbers that is a massive enigma but a simple, beautiful creation. The scriptures are like this.

 

[laska]

Good thought, but according to "god" he killed everything.

Quote:
Genesis 6:7
So the lord said, "I will wipe mankind, from whom I have created, from the face of the earth- men and animals, creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air- for I am grieved that I had made them.

I still think the text can be read as a limited flood. The language "the earth" can be interpreted narrowly(maybe replace the word "earth" with "land" to see it better.)

It seems to me the limited model does solve the problems you have brought up.
*It eliminates the problem if there is a lack of evidence of a global flood in the geological record
* the problem of how Noah fit every land species on the Ark as the language in the text would be interpreted narrowly in this area also
*the text seems to give enough time to build the ship and does not preclude Noah from hiring additional labor.
*it is impossible to prove that the Ark could not have been built, unless by chance you have a fullness of all ship engineering knowledge-past, present, and future.


who is to say a few thousand years from now any firth grade chemistry student will be able to turn water into wine.- I'm not doubting this at all, but only the ignorant would chalk it up to "divine" abilites. They surley will be able to, but because of science. Miracles, are all behind one's perception. If you would go back in lets say, the 50's, with a cell phone, everyone would think you are perfrming a miracle. If in the time of Jesus, you landed in an airplane, people at that time, who never saw such phenomena, would think you are a "god".

I sort of have a couple of theories on the nature of God. The first is that the laws of nature are fixed and eternal and that God understands the laws in perfection. God would use the same principles in turning the water into wine as the fourth grade chemistery student a thousand years from now. This view is that God is the ultimate engineer but that he works with fixed laws just as we do in our creations. The miracles is because we do not understand yet how God did them. The second theory, which I just thought of today, builds on the first but goes a step further. This is sort of out there but let me try explain my thoughts here. Recently, I read an article about the brilliant scientist and inventor Nikola Tesla. His inventions included a telephone repeater, rotating magnetic field principle, polyphase alternating-current system, induction motor, alternating-current power transmission, Tesla coil transformer, wireless communication, radio, fluorescent lights, and more than 700 other patents. He designed the Niagra falls electric plant. All of his inventions he created in his mind completely, everly little intricacy before he actually built it. All of his inventions worked perfectly the first time built with no modifications needed. The thought occured to me today what if this is sort of similar to how God creates things. In the imagination anything is possible, there are no laws of nature to your creations. Tesla was bound to the laws of nature though when it came to his physical creation. What if God, when creating our Unverse in His mind, wrote the laws of nature. The laws could be anything he chooses. I am not a scientist and so this is just a perception I have that could be incorrect, but it seems the laws of nature follow a mathmatical harmony. This would then seem to be evidence for a Creator.

 

[MrFungus420]

Kal-el, when I look at a complex mathematical theorem all I see is a bunch of numbers and squigglies. The mathmetician that looks at the same theorem sees things through different eyes because he has a different level of understanding than I do. If I had a love of mathmatics, a humble attitude that would allow me to be teachable, and put in the effort and study required to gain a different level of perspective, the theorem now looks totally different to me. It is not a bunch of inconsistent numbers that is a massive enigma but a simple, beautiful creation. The scriptures are like this.

So, you seem to be saying that God's word is so obtuse that it can only be understood by a select few? Not a very good way to get "the word" out to people.

I'd think that an omniscient, omnipotent God could do better then that.

 

[laska]

So, you seem to be saying that God's word is so obtuse that it can only be understood by a select few? Not a very good way to get "the word" out to people.

I'd think that an omniscient, omnipotent God could do better then that.

I believe it tends to be a closed book to the intellectually proud. I believe the key to understanding it is meekness and faith, and then the simple meanings can be seen.

 

[laska]

Here are some more discrepencies I have found. It seems there are some 10 verses that say that Jesus is God, and 6 that claim he is not, which is it?

Jesus is God?


Jn.1:1

Jn.1:14

Jn.8:58

Jn.10:30-31

Jn.10:38-39

Jn.20:28

Col.2:8-9

Titus 2:13

Phil.2:6

Heb.1:8

Rev.1:17

Rev.22:13

Jesus is not god?

Jn.8:40

Jn.14:28

Acts 17:31

1 Cor.11:3

Col.3:1

1 Tim.2:5

I can undersand how at first glance these verses seem inconsistent but they really are crystal clear.

 

[MrFungus420]

So, you seem to be saying that God's word is so obtuse that it can only be understood by a select few? Not a very good way to get "the word" out to people.

I'd think that an omniscient, omnipotent God could do better then that.

I believe it tends to be a closed book to the intellectually proud. I believe the key to understanding it is meekness and faith, and then the simple meanings can be seen.

The key to understanding is meekness and faith. So, in order to understand the Bible, you have to be patient, humble and submissive (meek), and you must already believe in it (faith).

As soon as you question it, you are no longer meek, so you can't understand it. If you have a different faith, you cannot understand it.

If they must first believe and are not allowed to question, then it still seems like a bad way to try to help people to find the truth.

 

[dragonslayer]

God so loved the world that he gave us his son. But why did he give us Bush, the Pale Rider.

 

[kal-el]

I can undersand how at first glance these verses seem inconsistent but they really are crystal clear.

You are correct, they are, clear-cut condradictions.

I still think the text can be read as a limited flood. The language "the earth" can be interpreted narrowly(maybe replace the word "earth" with "land" to see it better.)

It seems to me the limited model does solve the problems you have brought up.
*It eliminates the problem if there is a lack of evidence of a global flood in the geological record
* the problem of how Noah fit every land species on the Ark as the language in the text would be interpreted narrowly in this area also
*the text seems to give enough time to build the ship and does not preclude Noah from hiring additional labor.
*it is impossible to prove that the Ark could not have been built, unless by chance you have a fullness of all ship engineering knowledge-past, present, and future.

If it's god's word, no interpretation is needed. After all, the bible dosen't present itself as a "Where's Waldo?" book. Dude, the bible was written in a different time, a different culture, and in another language. I would say translating the original texts from Greek and Hebrew is not a walk in the park. If the Christian god is all knowing, don't you think he would make sure that his messages never got distorted, and noone could pick any contradictions out of his word, and if he is perfect, I would think that he would leave no interpretation or question of things; events. I think he layed all his cards on the table.

I sort of have a couple of theories on the nature of God. The first is that the laws of nature are fixed and eternal and that God understands the laws in perfection.

Of course he does, after all he is all knowing.

God would use the same principles in turning the water into wine as the fourth grade chemistery student a thousand years from now.

Yep. That just proves my point. God, and I'm just throwing out stabs in the dark here, could have just performed these "miracles" by appliyng simple scientific principles, however, at that time, they were only seen as "divine", as nobody then could understand the mechanisms behind such. So, a thosand years from now, students will be able to turn water into wine by applying the exact same concepts that "god" did; science.

The miracles is because we do not understand yet how God did them.

Exactly. Now you're starting to get it. We don't uderstand yet, nor in biblical times, but we are advancing fast, hence your "god" makes no appearences, could it be because science is shrinking him?

The second theory, which I just thought of today, builds on the first but goes a step further. This is sort of out there but let me try explain my thoughts here. Recently, I read an article about the brilliant scientist and inventor Nikola Tesla. His inventions included a telephone repeater, rotating magnetic field principle, polyphase alternating-current system, induction motor, alternating-current power transmission, Tesla coil transformer, wireless communication, radio, fluorescent lights, and more than 700 other patents. He designed the Niagra falls electric plant. All of his inventions he created in his mind completely, everly little intricacy before he actually built it. All of his inventions worked perfectly the first time built with no modifications needed. The thought occured to me today what if this is sort of similar to how God creates things. In the imagination anything is possible, there are no laws of nature to your creations. Tesla was bound to the laws of nature though when it came to his physical creation. What if God, when creating our Unverse in His mind, wrote the laws of nature. The laws could be anything he chooses. I am not a scientist and so this is just a perception I have that could be incorrect, but it seems the laws of nature follow a mathmatical harmony. This would then seem to be evidence for a Creator.

Maybe, but that's more "wishful thinking".