Talk:Problems with biblical inerrancy/Archive1

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)

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.

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.

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? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 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)

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

The other title was better anyway, and more accurate. Heart♥Gold ^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. Heart♥Gold ^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? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 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 ^heckle 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". --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 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 ^heckle 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 ^heckle 15:52, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

That sounds like a great idea. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 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! --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 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. Heart♥Gold ^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." Heart♥Gold ^tx 17:15, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Umn, how much money are you talking about, Devil's advocate? Heart♥Gold ^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. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 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...

--AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 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)

Organization and stuff

I suppose it is time to start talking about organizing the article. What sections should we divide it into? Attrocities, contradictions, and errors are a given. I think we should also discuss the the various forms fundamentalism and biblical literalism have played in Christianity through the years. There should also be a comparison on how Christianity has deviated from the Judaic interpretation of the Tanach, including the concepts of the messiah, hell, and Satan as good starter points. Also, I think instead of posting whole verses we can post the verse references as links to the verses on the blueletterbible website. This serves the purpose of making the page more tidy as well as a single click listing multiple translations of the page. Any thoughts?Devils advocate 16:59, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

I've been waiting for someone to get off their ass and help fire up our bible stuff, cuz im too lazy. I think a lot of what you say will require internal links/separate articles.--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 17:00, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Possibly. But we could give a general overview of the topics within PWBI itself and possibly link to the others as stubs or make them ful fledged topics of their own accord with this being a portal for them.Devils advocate 17:03, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Sounds great. I'm all for a Great Revamp. I'd love it if someone with a brain, like User:AKjeldsen, could help.--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 17:06, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Mmmm, braaainnnsss. ... Uh, anyway. I was thinking we could do refutations under different subject headings, such as Contents, Science, Politics, Ethics, Theology, and so on. So for instance, Contents could include e.g. the different (real) contradictions, Science could link to the inconsistencies regarding creationism and flat-earth theory, and Ethics would point out things like literalism requires supporting all the unpleasant genocides and stuff. And so on. Basically, get things organized a bit. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 17:08, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

isn't that what I said using different words? :PDevils advocate 17:15, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Anything worth saying is worth saying twice. *nods* (Or maybe I just didn't notice due to an edit conflict with PalMD.) --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 17:19, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

I am fully for working with you on it. It is apparant you are not ignorant on the topic. And I am not as ignorant of it as I fear you think me.Devils advocate 17:22, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

No need to fear, then, because today is your chance to redeem yourself in the eyes of the world. :D --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 17:48, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

I hate most people and do not care about redemption in their eyes. But I have taken a liking to you :P

Thank you. Oh, and please don't mind my occasionally absurdist humor. One gets used to it after a while. Or so I hear. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 18:53, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

We need skillzx0r for a Template!--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 17:09, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Reevaluation

I hate to do this (OK, not really), but if we're really doin' an AID on this article, we need to reexamine our quotes and consider keeping the best and discarding the worst (or saving them on the talk page). We also need to consider "broader" contradictions. HG I think is half-right about his quote mining charge, so we need to shore this up, and I think he is a good BS detector (although in the end I'll end up disagreeing with him, prob.)--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 17:21, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

With the amount of bs he has posted here, it would not surprise me if he had an intimate working knowledge of such things. When I get home I can dig through my notes and choose some of the better contradictions to use. I could compile a nice list of verses, save them as a txt file and place them where we can all sort through and vote on which one's are keepers, if you like? Or we could use a resource such as the skeptic's annoted bible and choose better verses. -- The preceeding was written by Devils advocate at 22:27, 12 July 2007

Palmd, okay, I will help a little. Bible and Theology departments at Seminaries are chock-full of athiests (ironic), but whether or not you believe this assertion, they are probably a better source for identifying true bible difficulties, and how various theologians address them. Heart♥Gold ^tx 17:30, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Bible difficulties

Also, here are some respond (I do not endorse or disavow the following):

• http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties.htm
• Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (search for it at Amazon, more than one book).

Anyway, I am not saying that bible difficulties do not exist, but that higher quality ones than what have been presented so far do. Also, the Bible has been studied and commented on widely, translated, etc. Some groups, I have heard, think the KJV is the inerrent word of God, while other churches beleive that the bible is inerrent as originally written, though it may have become corrupted through translation and scribes...anyway, this topic is a can of worms, and the article is more of a propaganda piece than a rational article (so far). Heart♥Gold ^tx 17:38, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Which adds to the problem of biblical literalism...which bible? I agree that this should be a rational approach, and that you probably won't like the result. But you are right about finding quality info.--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 17:49, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Scientific contradictions

I know msot of this stuff is covered by the Creationism-debunking articles, but ISTR the Bible has a few other factual howlers. (The Firmament being solid, grashoppers having four legs, rabbits chewing their cuds, etc.) --Gulik 17:53, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Failed Prophecies

"Some of you now present will see the end of the world." -- Jesus. (From memory, probably misquoted) --Gulik 17:53, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Biblical Inerrancy

Some selected quotes:

“”Bible difficulties, or apparent Bible contradictions, exist. The opponents of Christianity often use them in their attempts to discredit Christianity. Sometimes these attacks undermine the faith of Christians who either don't understand the issues or don't have the resources to deal with them. What a lot of Christians don't know is that the autographs (original writings) are inspired, not the copies. The autographs are the original writings, the original documents penned by the biblical writers. The copies are copies of inspired documents. The copies are not themselves "inspired"; that is, they have no guarantee of being 100% textually pure...through the copying method over the years, various textual problems have arisen. Following is a list of the types of errors that have occurred in copying the manuscripts. I've used English as examples instead of going into the original languages for examples.

• Dittography - Writing twice what should have been written once.

• A good example would be writing "latter" instead of "later." "Latter" means nearest the end. "Later" means after something else.

• Fission - Improperly dividing one word into two words.

• Example: "nowhere" into "now here."

• Fusion - Combining the last letter of one word with the first letter of the next word.

• "Look it is there in the cabinet... or Look it is therein the cabinet."

• Haplography - Writing once what should have been written twice.

• A good example would be "later" instead of "latter." "Later" means after something else. "Latter" means nearest the end.

• Homophony - Writing a word with a different meaning for another word when both words have the exact same pronunciation.

• Meat and meet have the exact same sound but different meanings. Also, there and their and they're are another example.

• Metathesis - An improper exchange in the order of letters.

• Instead of writing "mast," someone writes "mats," or "cast" and cats."

The above was selected from this, with which I largely agree, though there are other valid points not addressed in the link. Heart♥Gold ^tx 18:39, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

The problem with that argument is again trying to prove Xiantiy rather than just relying on faith. Religion is way to weird and unprovable to try to believe without faith. Since the original texts DO NOT EXIST, then we can never know their inerrant content. If you have faith, then it shouldn't matter.--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 18:51, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Faith is another can of worms. Faith in what? Faith as a work or a gift? Anyway, since the whereabouts of the original texts are unknown, and since God gave us brains and tools (e.g., linguistics, archeaology, etc.), we can do better than just dismiss. Also, the originals of other ancient works do not exist, but we do not simply ignore them. Heart♥Gold ^tx 18:56, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

But that raises the question you tried to dismiss with your point...if only the real document is true, and all we have are translations and our brains, then interpretation is necessary and literalism is impossible.--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 19:02, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Okay, I think I get it. Perfect literalism is impossible under this defense. I do think some groups believe that certain english translations are the perfect and inerrent word of God. Also, I do think that what you mean by literalism I mean using the best sources in the most rational way, which, for most people, and most topics, a good English translations will suffice, for most purposes. We can read the Illiad literally, right, but what is meant by literal depends on the context. Heart♥Gold ^tx 19:05, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Excellent. We have achieved mutual understanding. I have no problem with folks believing whatever they want, but to claim such-and-such a thing is inerrant is clearly nuts. To say that we will read it and use our minds, hearts, souls, etc to interpret its meaning in the best way, admitting that we may be wrong...it ain't exactly Pat Robertson-friendly.--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 19:22, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Essay fodder

Well, I think there is a spectrum of "literalists," and I also think that the implication that the Bible cannot be trusted simply because some atheists and/or agnostics came across some web page that juxtaposed confusing and out of context passages is folly. Most if not all of the "difficulties" are either addressed in Christian apologetics, addressable with further study, dismissed as interesting but non-Earth shattering paradoxes, and/or just dismissable as plain old quote-mining in furtherance of an agenda. The article, at least when my attention was first drawn to it, seemed to be an argument from ignorance and/or POQM (plain old quote mining).

The Bible is probably the most influential (as well as most attacked) "book" in the history of mankind. Yet, most of it is not even superficially contradicted by itself.

I am not yet equipped to personally address every juxtaposition that is superficially confusing, but if you're really interested in resolving most of them, resources are available. For example, I find that Hank Hanegraaff fields questions from the sincere and the scoffers alike on a radio program, usually very well, and in a manner with which I usually concur. You might want to call him. Be warned, however, you should come with more than a superficial juxtaposition.

Personally, I do not support Christian Apologetics as a way to convince non-Christians to become christians. Apologetics, as a philosophy, can be attacked with philosophical mental masturbation. You either read, listen, learn, (hear the word), have faith, get baptized, receive the holy spirit, become sanctified (a process), or you have, for some reason, a hardened heart. Christian apologetics is useful to Christians who are hungry to learn more and feed their intellectual understandings, but as a way to convince atheists that there is a God, I doubt that it is very effective. Speaking the word (planting seeds) is what Christians should do, but trying to convince the ground where those seeds are planted to force the seed to take root is as futile figuratively as it is literally, in my opinion.

Some disclaimers: I am not God. I don't claim to be God. I don't claim to speak for God (at least not in a way that only I can do). I do believe the Bible as originally written to be the inspired word of God. I have some Biblical difficulties that I can't quite resolve, but am not convinced that my ignorance proves worshiping God is futile or undeserved. I am not perfect, and even if tomorrow I were discovered to be a closet polygamist homosexual who has personally performed between 616 and 666 abortions, if you have faith, and decide to walk away from your faith because of me, my actions, or my inability or unwillingness to address juxtaposed passages, it is your decision to turn away from your faith, not mine.

Very nicely said...as Christianity goes, its seems a very "Grahamsian" rather than "Robertsonian" statement...a true Christian statement of faith, and an understanding that faith is fundamentally different from reason. Unlike many other atheists, I don't have a problem with religion per se, as it seems the human brain is not all that likely to give it up...I only have a problem with fundamentalist religions, and problems with religion trying to destroy reason rather than inform it.--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 21:48, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

You keep citing juxtaposition as though comparing two verses found in different areas of the same book somehow makes the contradictions irrelevant. According to what you would have us believe unless the contradictory statement immediately follows the verse there can be no contradiction. That is not only a false sentiment but a foolish one. Apologetics explain nothing as they deviate from biblical sources and often fabricate "evidence" simply as a means to excuse the inexcusable. Your "essay fodder" for all its rambling fails to provide one single point, one single example of a misused contradiction, and instead provides nothing but wild assertion that falls short in every way.the_anti-drug^{(elk murder)} 21:49, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

I think the HoGster pretty much explained that he's not much into Apologetics. I find the field a bit amusing, as it doesn't seem to inform faith, and it certainly doesn't inform reason.--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 21:51, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Sort of off-topic but what is the significance/where did the reference come from to 616 abortions? Only asking because I remember seeing a band of the same name some years back (for the record, they were bloody awful, not blasphemous or anything, just lousy musicians). _prettydilettante^lies 21:52, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

"You keep citing juxtaposition as though comparing two verses found in different areas of the same book somehow makes the contradictions irrelevant." Again, a juxtaposition does not establish a contradiction. I'll have to "debunk" a confusing juxtaposition I suppose. Heart♥Gold ^tx 21:55, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

These contradictory juxtas are only fatal to those who are true Literalists...most people who read the Bible understand that it is a document of greater complexity.--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 21:57, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Again and again you use the word juxtaposition as if that somehow invalidates the contradictory statements made by the verses. And you still have yet to offer a single evidence as to how any of the contradictions listed, at this point, on the page are not contradictory. The simple fact of the matter is that you cannot and you think that by repeating yourself it will somehow change the fact.the_anti-drug^{(elk murder)} 21:59, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

I agree with almost everything you say, in general, DA, and disagree with most of HG, however I think you are missing HGs point, and I think HG is having a problem with the idea of Literalism equaling actual literalism. Literal is literal, contradictions invalidate it. Non literal is non literal, and contradictions become less relevant.--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 22:03, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Essay fodder deuce

Myself, being a "dead again" Christian, (having had a "born again" experience and having tasted the fruits of the spirit and since repudiating God, Jesus, the HolaGhost) I have lost both the faith and the religion, (thank the gods). The whole "cycle", if you will, took about twelve years.
While I was in the Life I spent a good deal of time studying up on the Bible and related matter pertaining to the Bible, I'm autodidactic anyways and while I was the Sexton (janitor) of my church I got to use the library quite a bit. Though I never considered myself a fundamentalist I was probably close enough to being one that an outsider might not be able to tell the difference.
I've since come to having a sort of theo-atheism, which kind of works out like this: "God probably doesn't exist, but who'm I to say?" (The answer, of course, is "God")
Christianity, as I understood it, actually will push one to this sort of conclusion if you allow it........CЯacke® 22:23, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Well, I'll pray for yous. Heart♥Gold ^tx 23:38, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Demonstration that first listed "contradiction" is in fact a quote mine taken out of context

“”EX 21:22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Exodus 20:22 through Exodus 23:33 specify laws for God's chosen people (Israelites) under the new Sinai covenant. In Exodus, the Israelites are endowed and set apart from other peoples through worship, laws, officials, etc. Exodus 21:22-25 specifically deal with injuries to a pregnant woman resulting from Israelite men who are fighting with no explicit intent to harm the bystander, and the point is not to grant a license to retaliate, but rather to reasonably *limit* the punishment at a time long past when minor injuries may result in escalatory punative injuries (e.g., Moses killed an Egyptian who was beating one of Mose's people in Ex ^2:12). That these laws seem harsh by today's standards, or even by the ethical standards taught by Jesus, is interesting, but hardly a contradiction. Without the restraint of the Sinai covenant laws, the Israelite laws may have seemed even much more harsh.

“”MT 5:38 "You have heard that it was said, `Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Matthew 5:1-7:29 describe the sermon on the mount. In Matthew 5:21-48, Jesus contrasts his ethical teachings with distorted and misunderstood Legalistic traditions. In Matthew 5:38-42, Jesus specifically teaches that it is not moral to demand an eye for an eye, but rather to forgive and acquiesce.

So, the juxtaposition is taken out of context, is not an unexplained contradiction, and, is identified as a contrast or limit of previous law by Jesus himself. Heart♥Gold ^tx 22:33, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

---

"and the point is not to grant a license to retaliate, but rather to reasonably *limit* the punishment at a time long past when minor injuries may result in escalatory punative injuries (e.g., Moses killed an Egyptian who was beating one of Mose's people in Ex ^2:12)."

Speaking of improper juxtaposition... The verse you cited with Moses has no relation to the verse cited. Nor is there a single indication that the verse was designed to inhibit retaliation. Your "evidence" falls far far short of proving anything save that you enjoy adding concepts not in the bible to try and save face. Show where it states that law was made to prohibit limit punishment. There is none, yet you still saw free to pass off such a shallow argument. Did you expect such a poor excuse to actually stand up as evidence?the_anti-drug^{(elk murder)} 22:49, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Moses did not kill an Egyptian who was beating a Hebrew in Ex 2:12? I'll go double check. Heart♥Gold ^tx 22:52, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Yep, looks right to me. Next point. Shallow argument. Jesus said "You have heard...But I tell you..." Regarding limit versus license, I guess it depends on how you look at a half-full(empty) glass. The English reads "But if there is serious injury..." in Exodus. It does not say take "at least." The English does not say take "at most" either. But Jesus clarified that in his ethical (not legalistic) teachings. Heart♥Gold ^tx 22:57, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

If you will read my statement, you will see I never denied Moses was a murderer. The verse you cited simply had no relevance or bearing on the discussion. And your attempt at backpedaling has failed. In your absence of an ability to prove your point it has become an attempt at "I guess it just depends on how you look at it" which is a moot and meaningless point. This topic is on biblical inerrancy as held by fundamentalists and literalists, not "let's try to make up doctrine and then try to backpedal when we are called out on it" the_anti-drug^{(elk murder)} 23:01, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Forgive me for backing up, but you are quite hostile. Heart♥Gold ^tx 23:14, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Oh my gods, you are finally right about something. Never thought I'd see the day.the_anti-drug^{(elk murder)} 23:19, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Ah, I see. Heart♥Gold ^tx 23:24, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Actually, HeartOfGold's analysis is correct here. Like most similar legal systems, Israelite law on this point is probably meant to introduce social constraints on private justice in order to limit retaliations and blood feuds. In that regard, there's no real difference between that and e.g. the rules about blood money in medieval Frankish law. As for the Matthew quote, sure there's a contradiction, but it's an intentional one. The whole "You have heard that... but I tell you that..." is a rhetorical device that depends on a contradiction to make a point. There is no problem with that, in itself. Actually, and a bit ironical, it only becomes a problem theologically speaking when such contradictions are ignored, e.g. if Exodus is quoted by itself to make it appear that the Bible supports the death penalty. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 01:00, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Again, this is only correct if the conversation were removed from the fundamentalist biblical inerrancy approach. Were this another discussion, I would likely agree with each of you on the point. But in terms of this conversation, you are mistaken, and nearly become so in all considerations simply to the canonization of the bible.

The fundamentalist believes the bible to be infallable, inerrant, and complete. This leaves out the possibility of outside sources contributing, per Rev 22(though many fundamentalists will make an exception to that rule if they feel it supports their point). It also leaves out using logic to explain portions of the bible (1Cor1:25;2:14; and 3:19 are often quoted by fundies, but again, this rule is bent if used to support their stance). It also leaves several questions the non-fundamentalist should consider. If not literal, what do punishments for law breaking in the Tanach imply(a man murdered for picking up sticks on the Sabbath for instance) Why would god wait such an expanse of time to teach compassion with the law(seeing as Moses was so chummy with him and they were always talking with one another) How can the murder of thousands by taken nonliterally(and what lesson would there be other than god has poor taste when using metaphor)

Also, you depart from the scope of the discussion with "is probably meant to" For starters, it is at best an educated guess, at worst a gross assumption. Where that the only crime for which the penalty was death, there would be more room within this scope to discuss it, but when the Torah also lists punishment for breaking the Sabbath as punishment and then gives example by murdering a man for picking up sticks(Num 15), you can see the concern is less likely to simply be a firewall against blood feuds. If anything it supports the arguement used by the Pharisees and Saudecees against Jesus's Sabbath infraction. His statement on that issue opposed their interpretation which was itself set by biblical precident. Thus Jesus was contradicting the biblical precident in that instance indicating that his contradiction in the Matt quote may be more significant than simply sugar coating the soul with fluffy happy thoughts.

I would also like to suggest for the article examples on how various literalist and legalistic interpretations of the bible have caused doublethink and attrocity. An example would be the Inquisition's I love you I'll kill you approach based in part upon the two contradictory verses we have been discussing. Bad things happen when one has "The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them"(I hope everyone here has read 1984) the_anti-drug^{(elk murder)} 09:23, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Above

I just want to clarify a few things. The disputed passage existed before the current article's title was finalized. My interest in these passages was and is that they were being used to somehow diminish or snark at the bible, using tactics decried as "quote mining". That the article's title has changed without removing these passages is merely pulling the rug out from under my arguments.

So, the article started out as "Contradictory Bible Quotes." It was renamed "Contradictory Bible quotes" on July 12 at 16:45, as can be seen by this diff.

Note that the verses now subject to debate here existed when the article was titled "Contradictory Bible quotes."

Note also that Devil's Advocate edited the article when it was titled "Contradictory Bible quotes".

Now, the article has gone through some name changes, and during this, it was changed to "Problems with biblical inerrancy," the current title.

Intended or not, using the new title to frame the debate is intellectually dishonest, equivalent to pulling the rug out from under an opponent.

It is also intellectually dishonest to imply, as Devil's advocate does, that the debate that was going on before the latest name is somehow subject to whatever understanding of literal interpretation he decides to impose ex post facto. If you want to insist on assumptions to acheive a desired outcome, Devil's advocate, please do so at the onset.

Lastly, Devil's advocate sets up a strawman with "The verse you cited [Ex 2:12] with Moses has no relation to the verse cited[EX 21:22-25]." It is ironic that Devil's Advocate feigns indignation when others do not read his confused red herrings close enough while mischaracterizing my mention of EX ^2:12, which was used and clearly identified as a biblical example of escalating levels of violence and the self-appointed justice that preceeded the Hebrew Justice system established later in Exodus. Heart♥Gold ^tx 21:58, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

"I just want to clarify a few things. The disputed passage existed before the current article's title was finalized. My interest in these passages was and is that they were being used to somehow diminish or snark at the bible, using tactics decried as "quote mining". That the article's title has changed without removing these passages is merely pulling the rug out from under my arguments."

Read the above and read some of the discussion in the user forums. The supposed "quote mining" issue has been handled and explained and does not exist simply because you insist it does. Yet insistance is all you possess. You have yet to once show a credible fact pertainant to the discussion but instead sling random facts and half truths around as though they some how prove your stance to be one of accuracy. Slinging arguments and hoping one sticks simply shows you are not concerned with the validity of your argument but simply wanting to appear "right".

"So, the article started out as "Contradictory Bible Quotes." It was renamed "Contradictory Bible quotes" on July 12 at 16:45, as can be seen by this diff."

The issue was discussed on this page and I seem to recollect more than simply me being fond of changing the name to broaden the horizens and scope of this article(As similar topics were being discussed in the user forums If you do not frequent them you do yourself a disservice. They are really quote nice, a bit more legible too.)

"Note that the verses now subject to debate here existed when the article was titled "Contradictory Bible quotes.""

Indeed. And note that then you and a nameless ip editor ran roughshod over the articles without opposition to your purposeless editing. I am here and will not allow such inanity to go unquestioned. And now that you have such opposition you are clearly having a hard time coping with it. I am betting you thought it was so much nicer to simply do what you want without having to explain it.

"Note also that Devil's Advocate edited the article when it was titled "Contradictory Bible quotes"."

Indeed I did, with explanations as to why I edited the entries I edited. And you may not that I did not add the verses in question nor have I edited them.

"Now, the article has gone through some name changes, and during this, it was changed to "Problems with biblical inerrancy," the current title."

Indeed, it had several attempts to change it, sans discussion, made by yourself. And then it was changed to a title which we all(sans you) appear to have no problem with. You were one of, if not the, first to suggest changing the title. So cheer up, you got your wish. How does the saying go? God answers all prayers you just might not get the answer you want. Your page suggestion fell flat as it was apparant multiple people objected to it(no doubt in part by your unwillingness to discuss it beforehand).

"Intended or not, using the new title to frame the debate is intellectually dishonest, equivalent to pulling the rug out from under an opponent."

Not at all, the new title was discussed in several areas and save for you no one has had a problem with it. And as you were requesting a name change, there was no reason for you to act surprised. If by the rug being pulled from you, you mean you are in grudging agreement that you have no arguement in the context of biblical inerrancy, then buck up kiddo, there will be other battles to fight.

It is also intellectually dishonest to imply, as Devil's advocate does, that the debate that was going on before the latest name is somehow subject to whatever understanding of literal interpretation he decides to impose ex post facto. If you want to insist on assumptions to acheive a desired outcome, Devil's advocate, please do so at the onset.

"Lastly, Devil's advocate sets up a strawman with "The verse you cited [Ex 2:12] with Moses has no relation to the verse cited[EX 21:22-25]." It is ironic that Devil's Advocate feigns indignation when others do not read his confused red herrings close enough while mischaracterizing my mention of EX 2:12, which was used and clearly identified as a biblical example of escalating levels of violence and the self-appointed justice that preceeded the Hebrew Justice system established later in Exodus."

Perhaps you should look up exactly what a strawman argument is as your use of the verse actually constituted the strawman which was why it was necessary to point out that the two verses were in fact not related and that by labeling a an act of rage you could not thereby label b an act of rage and therefore the verses indicative of similar forms of escalation. And while a revenge killing may be an example of escalation it is never invoked in any form of relation to Ex 21. You were simply throwing out verses and hoping we would ignore the fact that the two are never linked together, your bad but I forgive you. It also does not approach the escalation of violence an eye for an eye would cause. As Ghandi said, an eye for an eye leaves all the world blind. I would also advise you to take caution with this vein of posts if you wish to be taken seriously as you are toeing the line of ad hominem. You are not there yet, but you know how such things escalate.the_anti-drug^{(elk murder)} 23:32, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

"It is also intellectually dishonest to imply, as Devil's advocate does, that the debate that was going on before the latest name is somehow subject to whatever understanding of literal interpretation he decides to impose ex post facto. If you want to insist on assumptions to acheive a desired outcome, Devil's advocate, please do so at the onset."

(sorry missed this one copying to vim)If you would like, I can link you to several oft cited Fundamentalist articles discussing the "tenets" of fundamentalism. I can assure you nothing I have written here is guesswork or assumption. And as opposed to some people, I am willing to provide valid evidences.the_anti-drug^{(elk murder)} 23:44, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

My name change (to the article) was intended to reflect the content of the article at the time. As to whether or not my name change was valid is fair game. My interest has been in the quote mining aspects of juxtaposed quotes. I am not "acting surprised" that the title was changed, but in fact, the title is so different now that it should *not* have had the history and associated talk pages moved...a new article should have been created from scratch. In this manner, I would not have followed. Also, not sure who the anonymous IP was. I took the liberty of intending your contribution to the thread, hope you don't mind. Heart♥Gold ^tx 23:47, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Indent away. The contents of the article now is not vastly different from the article at the point in time you were changing names. Indeed, it is nearly identical to your last renamings of the page. And again, the quote mining arguement has fallen through. There has actually been a bit more discussion of it on the boards than here so I will provide a link for your convenience. click methe_anti-drug^{(elk murder)} 23:59, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Ah, well, I have enough time on the talk pages. Not sure I get the function of the boards. I took the intent of the article from the title of the article (before the name change), and the juxtapositions. Heart♥Gold ^tx 00:06, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

You make the false assumption that the juxtaposition of two verses somehow invalidates the contradiction. To make any form of comparison of one thing or another the two must be juxtaposed, or placed side by side. So to even compare Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 1:2, the two verses would need to be juxtaposed and examined.

Great example. Simply juxtaposing two versus, say, Ge 1:1 and 1:2, does *not* establish contradiction. Heart♥Gold ^tx 00:13, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

If those two verses make statements in opposition to one another it does establish contradiction. The verses posted in the article are in opposition to one another, each limiting the other from being true if it is correct. Thus, contradiction. the_anti-drug^{(elk murder)} 00:19, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

In-article fighting moved here

(Ed., eventually move to talk page, create explanations to move here.Such "contradictions" are usually a sign of a simplistic analysis with cherry picked quotes taken out of context. This is called "quote-mining" on talk.origins, but on RW, it is tolerated, as long as the tactic is used against Christian beliefs, and not against evolution. Resp. If a document claims to be literally true, it should contain no contradictions. That response was a non sequitur. Please follow the logic. It takes more than a confused juxtaposition to establish a contradiction. But you prove the point. The premise of this article is that such confused juxtapositions are contradictions. Simply juxtaposing cherry picked passages out of context (read: quote mining) is sufficient to establish contradiction. re: You have yet to show how any statement on this page is a contradiction. )

This is extremely inappropriate for article text and has been moved here for further discussion, preferably by people who aren't going to throw around the "only apparent contradictions" argument. The fact is, any contradiction, trivial or otherwise, is a death blow to Biblical literalism. EVDebs 21:43, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Title

Should be Problems with Biblical inerrancy. ħuman 22:56, 5 January 2009 (EST)

How about just:"Biblical inerrancy". (that word [inerrancy] gets sillier the more I repeat it to myself!) Frohlich 23:35, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Sure, I guess that works. PS, firefox doesn't like "inerrancy" either. It suggests "Terrance". We should move it to "Biblical terraces". ħuman 23:51, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Question?

WTF means NASB?

New American Standard Bible -- Nx ^talk 00:51, 14 February 2009 (EST)

abrogating a law

"Biblical literalism or "inerrancy" is a Fundamentalist Christian belief based upon the principle that the Bible is the word of God, and that every word of the Bible is true and without error." If the law is without error, why does it have to be abrogated, and replaced by a diametrically opposed teaching? -- Nx / talk 19:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

See below. Also, what is in the Mosaic Law belongs to one covenant with God, what is in the Sermon on the Mount to another. It is not a contradiction to put forth the terms of two contracts in the same volume, neither is it a repudiation of either contract. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

How can you follow both? You must repudiate reject the validity of one if you accept the other, because they are opposites. -- Nx / talk 19:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That is true, which is why the early Christians rejected most of the Mosaic Law as not being applicable after the coming of the Messiah. Legalism is something of an heretical view. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If one rejects the OT, then one cannot believe in biblical innerrancy, no? -- Nx / talk 20:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The coming of Jesus abrogated most of the old law (which was only applicable to Jews in the first place), according to the provisions of the law itself. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Bullshit. The 10 Commandments are the crux of any Christian faith. You have no idea what you're talking about so I suggest you stop. Cgb07305

Most Christians and almost all literalists do not consider the moral part of the law, which includes the Ten Commandments, to have been abrogated. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I tried to do this the nice way and you didn't listen. Usually I only have this problem only dealing with other Christian asswipes (who know only slightly more than you apparently do). Can you cite any of your bullshit? I know you can't so I'm just going to go ahead and blow your shit out of the water: Matthew 5:18 and Luke 16:17. I am going to revert your bullshit edit one last time...notice that no one is backing you up on this because you are absurdly wrong. You've (poorly) weaseled yourself out of some corners by simply making shit up (e.g. the "moral" par of the law not being abrogated). Usually it's the neocon Christian right pulling this shit. I'm disappointed that others have joined the fray. Cgb07305

Are you done enumerating and erroneously conflating every political philosophy that you find disagreeable? Good; we can resume. The verses you cited have nothing to do with this particular "contradiction," which is Jesus explicitly changing (some say correcting a faulty interpretation of) the law. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

My word you are bad at this. The Law cannot be changed. Did you bother actually reading said verses? I don't give a rats ass what your political or even religious leanings are (other than being disappointed that non-Christians apparently can misinterpret shit as bad, if not worst, than the worst of the Christians). You're changing subjects by inserting your own bullshit about "morals" and whatever else in here. Show me where Christ said the Law can be changed. I provided two verses which said the exact opposite. You claim to be a scientist...I'm asking you to look that the evidence here. Ink can't be erased...therefore Jesus said twice that abrogation is impossible. Cgb07305

Which is why many literalists hold that the Expounding was a correction of a faulty interpretation of the law rather than an alteration of the law itself. Prophets were allowed to do that. (Incidentally, the divide between the moral, ceremonial, and civil parts of the Mosaic Law is not, as you suggest, my own invention; it was Thomas Aquinas who initially formulated it, I understand.) ListenerX^TalkerX 07:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Explain to me again how "turn the other cheek" is the correction of a faulty interpretation of "an eye for an eye" -- Nx / talk 13:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

As noted by both HeartOfGold and AKjeldsen above, the lex talionis was meant to limit the amount of revenge allowed. The faulty interpretation was to hold to the letter of the law; Jesus was pointing out that the spirit of the law condemned revenge rather than encouraged it. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"The faulty interpretation was to hold to the letter of the law" Isn't that what a Biblical literalist is supposed to do? -- Nx / talk 21:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that is what a legalist does. Big difference. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

First example in "Contradictory quotes"

The first quote expounds a point in the law that Jesus abrogates in the second quote. The entire point of the Sermon on the Mount was to make a reform or reinterpretation of the Mosaic Law. To posit that there is a contradiction between the two verses is just wishful thinking. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Why does a law without error have to be reformed?

And I wouldn't call that reinterpretation. -- Nx / talk 19:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Biblical inerrancy is not one of those Jewish doctrines. Get the idea? ListenerX^TalkerX 19:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No. -- Nx / talk 19:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Jewish law was not "infallible" in the sense that the Bible is held to be, and could be modified at any time by a new prophet. Even today there are vast rabbinical commentaries containing interpretations of the Old Testament. It is only Christianity that crystallized everything. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

EC: I think the idea is that the arrival and death of Jesus changed things. However there are some biblical literalists who still go with a literal interpretation of the OT and others who claim that it has been superseded. It depends on how literal you want to be I suppose.--Bob^{Not Jim} 19:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, legalism is something of an heretical view. Most people who advocate it are just nuts without any theological training to speak of who pick up Bibles and start quote mining. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Believers in dominionism are pretty common in the states.--Bob^{Not Jim} 20:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not just them, it's people like PJR who believe the bible is inerrant and "contain a consistent theme throughout" (ha!), but try to handwave these inconsistencies away, and cherry-pick which parts they consider to be correct. -- Nx / talk 20:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(EC) No, they are not. And the only actual theologian in that camp was R.J. Rushdoony, who was a grade-A kook and somehow mistook the U.S. Constitution for a book of the Bible. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

PJR, as I have said several times before, ought to stop fancying himself to know more about the Bible than all the theological faculties in the world. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Shades of no true Scotsman I feel.--Bob^{Not Jim} 21:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You are not allowed to say that a few kooks with scanty theological training are way out of the park with their theology? ListenerX^TalkerX 21:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the WP article, it looks like there are more than a few kooks. And even if were only a few, wouldn't that still be "no true Scotsman"?--Bob^{Not Jim} 21:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you mistook the "Critics of Dominionism" section for an "Adherents" section. And if the vast majority of Christians and near-consensus of theologians explicitly reject a theological view, one cannot very well tar them using the erroneous views being rejected. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

They're contradictions LX, if one is to take the thing as inerrant. Keep in mind that the people we see taking it as "inerrant" take it all, from Gen 1.1 to Rev 27.27 (?), they don't parse the thing like you do. They don't see Gen as an allegory or a fairy story, they take it hook line and sinker as "truth". Hence the nature of the article. PS, Christianity is stupid. ħuman 06:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

1. See if you can read some theology sometime, even in summary form; you might be surprised. I know I was.
2. Bringing up creationism is irrelevant, as this is a discussion of what the Bible says rather than what is true. Literalist theologians, insofar as they exist, might be in error when they take Genesis literally, but that does not prevent them being correct on the question of legalism.
3. Nobody says that if you pluck a verse at random out of the Bible, and then at random again pick a context in which to place it, said verse will invariably be true in said context. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The only way to know for sure is to ask PJR. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 20:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I will ask him, although I have considerable doubts about the reliability of his Bible scholarship. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Asked him. Hopefully he will not take the legendary route of quote-mining CMI for an answer. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

He has now replied. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but he's retarded. ħuman 04:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

He is a literalist. I will repeat, yet again, that even literalists do not believe that all verses of the Bible are "true" in all contexts. Can we remove the ridiculous straw-man "contradiction" now? ListenerX^TalkerX 04:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

That's what I said. And, no, you silly person. Literalists simply lie and fudge to get around crap that doesn't work, that's all. So what if PJR, a Biblical literalist, claims the Bible is in no way self-contradictory? He has to say that, in order to keep his head from asploding. He has also never come clean about which parts of the Bible are absolutely literal, and which are, say, allegory, metaphor, etc. (he says, as I recall, that "you can tell" which bits are which, and when you master that, you will agree with him 100%). ħuman 06:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

What you say about PJR is true. However, it is of little relevance to this question, since if you interpreted the Bible literally from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation, that still does not make the new points in the Expounding of the Law any less a supersession of the Mosaic Law. And you are not getting anywhere by presupposing that literalists are liars; neither are you getting anywhere by making a straw man of their position.

To articulate this position in an understandable form I need to use small words, apparently, so here goes: God spoke to Jews. Gave law. Jesus came. Held as prophet. Modified law. Extended law to apply to everyone. Literalists say Bible reports both events accurately. I challenge you to find me a source that says otherwise. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's more like: God taught that an eye for an eye is good. Also he was a ruthless, blood-thirsty power-hungry dick. Then God became a hippie and taught that an eye for an eye is bad. I.e. he said that his own law is WRONG (the experience of being human must've changed his personality slightly). -- Nx / talk 09:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it your position, Listner, then that all literalists take the view that the Old Testament laws (eye for an eye, shrimp, death for breaking the Sabbath etc) were overturned by the New Covenant? Or that some do and some don't?--Bob^{Not Jim} 09:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It varies, even among literalists, along the entire spectrum from antinomianism to legalism. But even the strictest legalist holds that what Jesus explicitly overturned has been overturned, and most others also hold that the ceremonial and civil parts of the law were overturned, citing the remarks of St. Paul in some of his epistles.

Nx, the position is that God changed the law. You know, like legislatures do each year when they meet. And if you think Jesus had a "hippie" personality, I suggest that you read the Bible a little more; Matthew 23 is a good place to start. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I would probably agree that, as you say, "most others also hold that the ceremonial and civil parts of the law were overturned". But that is not the same as saying, "all Christians hold that the ceremonial and civil parts of the law were overturned." It depends on how far down the road to lunacy you want to travel.--Bob^{Not Jim} 18:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Except legislature doesn't claim that the previous law was without error. -- Nx / talk 20:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Mmmm. I'm not sure about that Nx. If you make slavery illegal then, by implication, the previous law which countenanced slavery was not correct. Morality certainly does change. Biblical literalists try to pretend that "Christian" morality doesn't change but - as the slavery example shows - they are wrong. There is, in fact, a spectrum of religious lunacy which starts with utter biblical literacy and ends with with deism. The problem is that whatever issue you identity you can find religious people who will say "That is not the majority position." Given the variability and lack of logic of religious views they will always be correct.--Bob^{Not Jim} 21:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Bob, to avoid confusion, I was referring to most literalists taking that position on the ceremonial and civil law. Literalism and legalism are two different positions.

The position is that before Jesus altered the law, the old law was what God commanded, and after Jesus altered the law, the new law was what God commanded. The old law did not have to be declared "erroneous" to be superseded by the new law. Analogously, laws can be changed without being declared unconstitutional or "erroneous" by the courts; they can simply be abrogated by the legislature because they have served their purpose. ListenerX^TalkerX 00:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, LX, but it's all fiction, and some morons claim every word is as true as they want it to be. ħuman 02:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Whether one regards it as fiction or nonfiction is irrelevant to the fact that these particular parts of it are internally consistent. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Not when someone claims that every damn word of it is inerrantly true, including the early fairy stories (and the later ones). Do you see the point, yet? ħuman 03:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I have stated this perhaps three hundred times before, but I will rephrase it. Exodus 21 chronicles God dictating the old law. Matthew 5:39 chronicles God dictating the new law. Literalists think that these are inerrant and literally true records of both events, that is all. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

And they pick random shit from the OT to throw around when they feel like it - our dear PJR thinks most of Genesis (the parts he doesn't he keeps secret) are literally true. I guess he'd be on board with his god saying a while (how long?) later, "oops, I was wrong, I lied, here's the new rules". LX, don't you understand? These people are morons, Christianity is stupid, and there is no god? ħuman 03:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

But God did not say "I lied;" he simply changed the law. The old law applied before the Sermon on the Mount and the new law applied afterwards. The IQ of literalists, the hypothesized stupidity of Christianity, and the existence of Gods are irrelevant to the consistency of these two verses. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

So, uh, what part of "the Law" do inerrantists agree was changed by the good news? Shrimp eating, ok? Mixed fabric, ok? Sleeping with men as with women, ok? Having no gods before You, ok? What exactly in the OT laws was overturned by the good news, and who exactly agrees on it? ħuman 05:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

As I said, all literalists would agree that what Jesus changed has been changed. Then, except for a few fringe legalists, the ceremonial law (shrimp eating, mixed fabric) is said to be out (Colossians 2:16, etc.). Then, except for the Dominionists (who are also a fringe group in literalist circles) the civil law (penalties such as stoning your wife for adultery) is also said to be out. This leaves the moral law (the Ten Commandments, etc.), which remains in effect, although there is some dispute as to whether or not it only applies to Jews, and Jesus is said to have taken the punishment for any and all transgressions of it. Additionally, antinomians (not well represented in the literalist set) will tell you that the moral law is also out. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That's like as unlike "inerracny" as I could have made up myself. In defending inerrantism you used the word "except" twice, "although" once, and "additionally". It's no wonder our article makes fun of these freaks. Do you get it now?

"all literalists would agree that what Jesus changed has been changed" yeah, but, they wouldn't agree on what she changed. You're really missing the point on this. I understand your point, I really do, I just don't see it as having any bearing on a RationalWiki article. ħuman 06:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

My dispute is not that the article makes fun of literalists, but that it makes a straw man out of their position, ascribes to them claims about the Bible that they do not make, and makes us look a bunch of ignorant fools whose exegetical skills consist of throwing darts at the Bible.

The "except"s, "although"s and "additionally"s were to set apart beliefs that are considered fringe and heretical by the rest of the literalists. Among most of them there is a certain orthodoxy. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I will repeat: All literalists are in agreement that Jesus removed the permissions for revenge contained in the lex talionis. ListenerX^TalkerX 09:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If anyone can find one literalist arguing that Jesus did not at least correct a faulty interpretation of the law in Matthew 5:38, then I will perhaps allow that the "contradiction" does not utilize a colossal straw man. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's see what Andy says... ħuman 06:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Schlafly is a Catholic, not a literalist. Besides, I doubt that, if you mistrust PJR as a source of literalist opinion, Mr. Schlafly would be any better. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"No reference needed beyond the fact that one DIRECTLY QUOTES AND CONTRADICTS the other." — I apparently need to repeat this yet again, but this is a fundamental misrepresentation of what inerrantists claim. In Matthew 5:38, Jesus says, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." If one denied that such things had ever been said, or that they held force of law prior to the Expounding, that would be a denial of Biblical inerrancy. Merely denying that a certain verse does not today hold force of law, on the basis that the Bible says it does not, is not a denial of Biblical inerrancy. ListenerX^TalkerX 08:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Two quickies: 1. Being Catholic and being a literalist are not mutually exclusive. There is a ultraconservative holdout of the Church that ignores the now official Church acknowledgment that it is not meant to be literal. 2. Can you show us where the bible says it's ok to ignore old verses in favor of new ones? This, quite frankly, is news to me. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 09:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

1. That would appear to go against what a large number of Church Fathers had to say, if the Old Catholic Encylopedia says aright. Much of the "ultraconservative holdout" appears to be excommunicated at present.
2. No verses are being "ignored." The older verses are said to refer — inerrantly — to a law or interpretation that is no longer in effect. For the Christian, the Bible's assertion that Jesus, a.k.a. God the Son, explicitly overruled the old law or interpretation, is enough evidence that it is all right not to go by the old law on that point. In other places, St. Paul made much criticism of observance of the ceremonial law among Christians; cited examples are Colossians 2:16-17 and Galatians 5. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Interpretation

It's difficult to assume that the Bible is riddled with errors, because there are a billion schools of interpretation to explain away these errors. Quote mining the Bible for old testament examples of a brutal God and comparing it with quotes mined from the so-called loving God of the new testament just doesn't jive. Christians view the Bible holistically,with a sense of abrogation, ie. it was ok for God to let Abraham to "fuck" his sister, ie. it's ok to wipe out a town of sodomites (pun absolutely intended) , because God's method of dealing with people in the days of Abraham and Sodom and Gormorrah was distinctly different from the ways he dealt with Jesus and his apostles and the ways that the prophecies incline the reader to believe he'll treat the end time Christians.

For the Christian reader the Bible is one revelation from one God proportioned in 66 (or 73 for some) different books. Now of course that brings in the whole issue of "does God change", which would be far more profitable to debate in the context of Bible errancy. If God change's then how can he/she/it be omnipotent?. etc etc. Now the answer I suggest is that the Bible is portioned into dispensations between God and various great men, ie. there is one game plan - but the elements change depending on the players. But of course that's a bit outside of the mainstream... anyways this is one of those too long didn't read rants.

So enjoy some comedic vandalism on conservapedia... http /www.conservapedia. com /index. php=3ftitle=3dGenesis_1-8_( Translated)=26curid=3d95671= 26diff=3d741246=26oldid=3d738544

--JeffD (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You bring up an interesting point. However, this article is intended as an attack on fundamentalists who do not share your view of the Bible. They see God as unchanging, omnipotent, and (most important) infallible, which is refuted by these examples. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This entire article is a pile of bunk. If the most obvious example of this continues to be restored, I shall be obliged to slash the entire thing to ribbons and replace it with some examples of real problems with Biblical inerrancy. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

ORLY? ħuman 05:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course, if the blind wish to continue leading the blind into the nearest ditch, I shall be happy to post the new article as an essay instead. Your comments on the slashing to ribbons are welcome, but as yet unreceived. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional links

No talk about biblical inerrancy would be complete without a link to The Skeptic's Annotated Bible. I'm sure there's plenty of others TrogL (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Cut

This assessment, of course, assumes that all Christians are young-earth advocates, which they are not. The majority of educated Christians believe, in fact, that the word day (yom in hebrew) in the Genesis creation account attests to ages or long periods of time for creation, not 24 hour days. In addition, this criticism of the Bible is also based on extrapolation of micro-evolutionary evidences to a macro level. Evolutionists, in other words, use tiresome examples like the peppered moth and the Galapagos finches (nothing more than expressions of variability within the existing population) to supposedly explain how, for instance, a whale evolved from a salt water sponge. This is an enormous leap of inference (extrapolation) that is in no way or manner supported by the fossil record. The fossil record attests, in fact, to the sudden and abrupt appearance of life during the Cambrian period followed by major extinction events; and then, following each event, we see the inexplicable appearance of new and advanced life forms like dinosaurs without any verifiable transitional antecedents - a natural history pattern far more consistent with the work of a Creator as described in the Bible than supposed macro-evolutionary processes that would need to take place over hundreds of millions of years, and more accurately billions of years. The Bible, it should also be emphasized, does not disclaim or verify evolution in any way. It does not explain how God created species, it just stakes claim to His existence while making it clear that God is, in fact, responsible for the creation. A reasonable inference, nonetheless, is that God created through and alongside evolution (known as progressive evolution) - an interpretation of scripture that would appear to far better comport with evidences in the fossil record than does Darwinism which, to be validated, must produce millions of missing transitional forms. At this point in history, it is obvious why the transitional forms are missing - they are not there because they never existed. Evolutionists, to borrow an expression used below to insult Christians, obviously have not gotten this memo and are unable to just let the evidence take us where it will. Such conceit and intellectual dishonesty is quite amazing, though fully understandable in recognition of the anti-God complex infecting the minds of those who subscribe to strict naturalism and scientism. Nevertheless, having said enough, we now return to the insulting and ill-founded criticism of the Bible and the pseudo-intellectual attacks on Biblical inerrancy based on complete misrepresentations and ignorance of leading Biblical scholarship and proper hermeneutical application.

While a bit of a text-wall, it's probably a fair assessment to say that "many Christians aren't YECs"... but that's beside the point when we are talking about YECs as I'm sure I've said before. ^gnostic 13:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing this unsubstantiated addition to the article. When I read that the "majority of educated Christians believe" something, I read it as a statement of what the writer believes, no more, and that is of no interest to anybody else. TomS TDotO (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I thought I did roll it back. Must have missed that it didn't work. It's hilarious, but at least there's one kinda valid point (not all Christian's are YEC) in there. ^pathetic 14:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Most literalists these days are YECs, since they consider day-age creationism to be too symbolic an interpretation, while most "educated Christians," especially in Europe, are theistic evolutionists. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)