Talk:Problems with biblical inerrancy/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] With God all things are possible...

User:66.243.175.34 just removed two examples, one of them being:

  • "... 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

claiming that the second verse was misquoted. However the quote is the text of the KJV (according to biblegateway.com), so I've added it back in. Now it's true that the NIV is a little different:

  • "The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had iron chariots."

So I ask that the editor discuss it here (and please sign up!)

As to the other removed example, I'm not sure about it so I've left it out.

-- Stevo (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2007 (CDT)
You're right, it does say that in the KJV. I don't know hebrew, so I can't help out there, but arguing for the KJV is not a very good argument since it is a very old translation. I would quote from the NASB to be safe (I am learning greek, and this translation is one of the best as far as original languages go). If no one disagrees, I'll change all the references to NASB. --66.243.175.34 17:17, 1 July 2007 (CDT)
I wouldn't really disagree with that, though I don't know much about this subject (and I find that Biblical literalism gets really complicated!). There'll be more people on here during the week. Oh and pleeeeease, Why don't you sign up? -- Stevo (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2007 (CDT)
Back to the verse above. I think it's pretty clear that in modern versions (which have a better understanding of the languages), there is no contradiction. I am removing it again because there is really no need for debate over this, it's obviously not a contradiction. The antecedent of "they" is Judah, not God. --66.243.175.34 21:47, 1 July 2007 (CDT)
I'd try to explain, but I suspect you have a deep ideological investment in Not Getting It. --Gulik 17:34, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

[edit] Temptation/Testing

"Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am being tempted by God'; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone." -- James 1:13
"Now it came about after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, 'Abraham!' And he said, 'Here I am.'" -- Genesis 22:1

In the James passage, the key word I would focus on is evil. There is a difference here between tempting and testing. God does not dangle sin in front of our eyes, but He might let us go through a hard situation to see if we really love Him or not. That is the difference here; there is no contradiction. The James passage is talking about temptation from sin, and the Genesis passage is simply talking about testing through a difficult situation. --66.243.175.34 10:50, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

This passage will be placed back in the article along with the following verses which clear up the issue.

(Isaiah 45:7, KJV) - "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

(Amos 3:6) - "Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?"

(Job)1:12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.

[edit] Son bearing punishment of sins of the father

"...The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity..." -- Ezekiel 18:20
"...I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me," -- Exodus 20:5

The following is an excerpt from this article. The above two verses are talking about consequences in two different ways, which we get from context. One is talking about it in a covenantal way, while the other is referring to it in more legal terms.

Exodus 20:5 is, of course, among the ten commandments. The Ten Commandments are arranged in covenant form. The Suzerain-Vassal treaty pattern of the ancient near east is followed in the Ten Commandments. This arrangement included an introduction of who was making the covenant (Exodus 20:2), what the covenant maker had done (20:2), laws (20:3-17), rewards (20:6,12), and punishments (20:5,7). Covenantally, when a father misleads his family, the effects of that misleading are often felt for generations. This is because the father is being covenantally unfaithful and God has stipulated that there are punishments to breaking the covenant with God. That is the case with these verses that deal with the sins visited upon the children. If a father rejects the covenant of God and takes his family into sin and rejects God, the children will suffer the consequences, often for several generations. Whether or not this is fair is not the issue. Sin is in the world consequences of sin effected many generations. [1]

Based on this, and more that article has to say, it's not a contradiction. I'll go ahead and remove it. --66.243.175.34 15:56, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

The article you cite gives no evidence to support its statement for how it falls upon later generations but instead makes a general statement. As there is no biblical or credible information to support that arguement, I am adding the verses back in.

[edit] Not much left

We now have exactly two sets of "contradictory" quotes here, one of which refers to two different covenants, and the other one of which doesn't really make any sense. Maybe this page has... sort of outlived its usefulness? --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 05:58, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Perhaps we should create "biblical contradictions" instead?--Bob_M (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
Maybe...The only reason one would "need" such a page is to refute the Christian fundamentalist claim that the whole of the Bible is "inerrant". If one assumes that the Bible contains some errors then the need for the article vanishes. The CF's though, cannot "allow" for there to be even one error or contradiction in the Bible because then you'd have all sorts of interpretations with folks regarding one passage as "more important" than another (which one might hold to be in error). Personally, I've started seeing a divide of late, there are Christian fundamentalists who aren't always Biblical fundamentalists. The CF's who aren't BF's seem to be able to have their faith while losing their religion. The BF's though seem to be in the process of turning the Bible into their new idol. They'll talk to you nice and sweet like all day if you'd let them about God and Jesus and Paul and the like. You can put up any defense you'd like against God and Jesus and Paul and the like but don't you dare say a word agin the Bible!!! But then again it's all some people have, because they have the religion but not the faith (but don't know what they don't know). MOO CЯacke® 11:56, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
OK. Hey I'm with you on this Cracker. I was just thinking that such a heading would include the two entirely different lineages given for Christ, and the two different ways the authors of the gospels invent stories to get him born in Bethlehem.--Bob_M (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

[edit] Hey, please discuss moving back to silly "Contradictory bible quotes" first

The other title was better anyway, and more accurate. HeartGold tx 15:03, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

I think "juxtaposed quotes that cause confusion" is a longer way of saying "contradictory".--PalMD-Goatspeed! 15:07, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

I don't. I think contradictory is provable. So far, I see only confusion in the examples given. If X>3 and X>3, that is a contradiction. If the Square root of 25 is Y, and Y is less than 0, this would appear to be a contradiction to liberals who have had limited math exposure. HeartGold tx 15:11, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
I'm hoping that's a typo, and that you don't really think X>3 and X>3 is a contradiction. And anyway, if two bible quotes say the opposite of each other, how is that not a contradiction? Thunderkatz 15:19, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
Because they come from two entirely different parts of the Bible? --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 15:27, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
Interesting. It really depends on how you read the Bible. If you are a Literalist, then they are contradictory. If you acknowledge that the Bible has many different authors, etc, and is a large compilation, then they are not contradictory, just interesting.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 15:31, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
Contradiction derives from the belief in single authorship from a perfect being. tmtoulouse provoke 15:32, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
So we're back on "Is the bible one book?" again. I'd say it pretty obviously is - though I know that AKjeldsen will disagree. And if it says different things in different places then these would certainly appear to be contradictions. --Bob_M (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
Right. Then I suggest that we stop this methodological circus and start writing about the issue that matters: The Literalists themselves. Because right now, all this thing says is, "We don't have a clue about this subject". --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 15:41, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Agreed, I think an article about how the bible is not the inerrant word of God would be what we want. There are many facets for why it can not be, and the development of contradictions is only one part of it. tmtoulouse provoke 15:44, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

I would not be opposed to such an article.
I'd love to have a good Bible article, the RW hook to it being basically a cultural look/literary criticism--how do people apply what is called the Bible. My knowledge gets murky after Numbers, though.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 15:51, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
So how about we move this article to a new title such as Problems with biblical inerrancy and use this as the structure for the creation of that new article? tmtoulouse provoke 15:52, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
That sounds like a great idea. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 15:53, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
This discussion is a truly blasphemous attempt at liberal deceit and compromise, and an attempt to use the Holy Bible as toilet paper. I will now begin a Range Block on all discussants. --PalMD-Goatspeed! 15:56, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
Godspeed! --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 15:59, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
Praise Jah and nmap the ip numbers!Devils advocate 16:54, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
The problem with this article is you are starting with a conclusion, and moving forward. But some of the sweeping foundational statements of the article, and even some of the so-called "contradictions" (really should be called juxtapositions that cause confusion on the part of some), are problematic. I'd love to help, but I don't have the same agenda as many of the other contributors, which is to mock. HeartGold tx 17:05, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
Good point, but it's a legitimate question: If the Bible is literally true, word for word, how do you reconcile statements that, when juxtaposed, contradict each other?--PalMD-Goatspeed! 17:08, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
Care to put your money where your mouth is? Point out a single remark you view is not a contradiction. Then explain in depth why it is not a contradiction including biblical example and if necessary valid historical research dealing with linguistics and customs of the day. Quote your sources. If we are mistaken, then you should be able to prove it instead of simply saying it.Devils advocate 17:13, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
Well PalMD, how would you handle this in Med School, if you were taught two different things that appeared to contradict each other? Applying what you would do to this problem, you would, I assume, either perform further research and/or ask somebody who has studied bible difficulties. Unless, of course, your true intention was simply to knock down and mock, in which case, you'd jump up and down and shout "nahnahnahnah, that doesn't make sense." HeartGold tx 17:15, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
Umn, how much money are you talking about, Devil's advocate? HeartGold tx 17:15, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
click meDevils advocate 17:18, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
HG has some very good points. But it's a matter of faith. We need to explore is comment about quote mining and evaluate it's validity.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 17:16, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
I think in most cases, these apparent contradictions are due to comparing different types of texts. Taking the first example on the page right now, Exodus 21:23-25 and Matthew 5:39, that appears on the surface to be a contradiction. But the problem is that the Exodus quote is a case example taken from a legal text, while the Matthew one is part of a sermon. Those are two completely different contexts, with completely different sender-receiver frameworks and intentions. Except for the whole problem of canon, it's like comparing the US Code and Henry David Thoreau or something. This is actually one of the things that I think is necessary to emphasize: That the Bible contains a number of different types of texts, that you have to understand these different types in order to understand the whole, and that literalists often disregard this, preferring uncritical "quote-dropping" instead. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 17:30, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
Go back to your Derrida, you Euro-commie--PalMD-Goatspeed! 17:56, 12 July 2007 (CDT) (BTW, thats exactly the kind of thing I was hoping we could do.)
Ugh, Derrida. Not too fond of that one. Now, Foucault, on the other hand...

--AKjeldsenGodspeed! 18:04, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

As you mentioned, the problem comes from the canon. It essentially places all of the texts on an equal footing and makes the legality vs sermon issue vague and in many ways non-existent. the sermon itself becomes law instead of a personal discourse among a small group of people where only a selected portions of scripture were used. Yet compiling the bible says all these books are right all the time. Not this one in this context and that one in that context. While that does not remove all contradictions, it makes it noticeably less.Devils advocate 18:25, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support