Biblical contradictions.

[The Atheist]

Since this is supposedly a sub-forum about religious texts, I thought I'd actually discuss one for a change - the bible.

The christian bible, best-selling book of all time, yet surprisingly, never sought after as a second-hand item. I frequent several second-hand bookshops and bibles and politics are always half-price.

George Orwell has a lovely passage in Burmese Days, where a travelling book salesman would come and buy and sell books to the English contingent. Despite being illiterate, the bookseller would never buy a bible. When asked why that was, he replied, "Sahib, many men are selling this book, but none are buying it. It must contain demons." Now that is, of course, fictional, but it bears the hallmark of truth.

I find the bible terribly disappointing as a supposedly "perfect" book, yet the fact of the outright contradictions in the bible are glossed over, if they're mentioned at all.

Take the "Good Thief" as a case in point. Christians often use the parable of good thief, crucified with Jesus, where Jesus is being mocked by all, including one of the thieves crucified next to him, while the other said:


Neither dost thou fear God, seeing; thou art under the same condemnation?

And we indeed justly: for we receive the due reward of our deeds. But this man hath done no evil.

And he said to Jesus: Lord, remember me when thou shalt come into thy kingdom.

showing that even in the distress of dying on the cross himself, one of the thieves saw the good in Jesus and repented.

Yet according to Matthew, when Jesus was mocked:


And the selfsame thing the thieves also that were crucified with him reproached him with

For accuracy, I have used the New Advent Bible (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/), as approved by the Roman Cathloic Church. Heck, if it's good enough for the Pope, it's good enough for me!

Now, did both thieves mock Jesus, or just one of them? Right from Thomas Aquinas, a cornerstone of christianity has been the accuracy of scripture, of which the gospels are the most important part, so this is not a small error by any means.

There are many dozens of glaring inconsistencies in the bible, but that's my favourite one. To me, if a book is the holy word of god, it wouldn't contain these errors and the fact that even such an august body as the RCC uses them in this fashion means that the translation is accurate to a fault - the same wording has been used in English for almost 400 years.

WWJD

[weepingforloman]

Considered the possibility that more than two thieves were there? Considered the possibility of slight translation errors? Considered that it doesn't quite matter? The issue of who Christ was remains whether one thief or no thieves recognized it on that particular day.

[chaplin]

Now, did both thieves mock Jesus, or just one of them?

There are many dozens of glaring inconsistencies in the bible, but that's my favourite one. To me, if a book is the holy word of god, it wouldn't contain these errors and the fact that even such an august body as the RCC uses them in this fashion means that the translation is accurate to a fault - the same wording has been used in English for almost 400 years.


I've never read the "New Advent" Translation, but regardless of which used, there are many of those types of contradictions in the New Testament. One Gospel will have a certain group in attendance at a sermon and the other won't. One will have a series of events happening in one order, another in a different one.

These are explained, from what I've read, as the different authors of the Gospels remembering and recording things slightly different from the others. And, I've also read commentary that cites such "nominal" contradictions as support for the authenticity of the writers of the Gospels; i.e, the differences in the texts show/prove that each was written by a different person, and not by one institution or cohesive group.

I don't think the Bible is a "perfect" book. Some claim it to be, but I don't think most would conclude that it is "perfect". And, I feel, the type of inconsistencies mentioned above don't really prove or disprove its authenticity or correctness; which I think is impossible.

[Redzeppelin]

I'm disappointed JGL - there are other apparent contradictions in the Bible much more thorny than the thieves on the cross. Nonetheless, what must be remembered is that the gospels are based on eyewitness accounts - and any historian knows that mulitple accounts often contain information that provides a different view of a situation. Each gospel also had a different intended audience as well - which influenced how the writer presented his facts. The two instances you give do not indicate time - and as such could reasonably be explained by the fact that Luke's account tells of a later incident - perhaps the repentant thief needed a bit more suffering on the cross before his heart was ready to accept the conviction of the Holy Spirit that the man next to him was indeed, the Christ.

PS - apparent contradictions that do not deal with theology are non-issues. Theological contradictions - those are a big deal.

[Niamh]

PS - apparent contradictions that do not deal with theology are non-issues. Theological contradictions - those are a big dea.

Like what? Sorry you've got me curious!

[Redzeppelin]

Like what? Sorry you've got me curious!

One apparent theological contradiction is the issue of free will vs God's omniscience. Some people struggle with Romans 9:23 and its statement "What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy whom He prepared in advance for glory" as being predestination (but it's not) - which would contradict the apostle Paul's constant commands for us to "choose" whom we will serve. You won't find theological contradictions in the Bible - but you may find disagreements in the details of some of the eyewitness accounts. These in no way reduce the validity of the Bible; if anything, they attest to the eyewitness nature of its writing - because a "manufactured" (as opposed to divinely inspired) text (as many unbelievers claim the Bible to be) would not contain some of the discrepancies apparent in the Bible.

[bazarov]

Atheist, you are comparing two different situations, and therefore we have two different meanings.
Firstly, before the court, they are both mocking him, they don't know him and they are having fun. But, after watching his agony, one of them is changing his mind and he is realizing His greatness. So Jesus saves him the same exact day.

But I don't know what did Christians do to you...:lol:


weepingforloman said:

Considered the possibility that more than two thieves were there? Considered the possibility of slight translation errors? Considered that it doesn't quite matter?

There were only two thieves.
There are no translation errors, someone would already see them.
It does matter, some people loose their faith because of things like this.

Contradictions are result of seeing story from 4 different views and not only one, and then it's really normal. If they were all the same, I would maybe suspect in setup. Four people on one place in same time would tell you 4 similar stories, but never exact the same 4 stories. Therefore, we have 4 similar stories about the same thing; 4 Gospels.

[Unbeliever]

I hadn't intended to bring up the subject myself, but since The Atheist did, and others may be interested in the subject of (apparent) contradictions in the Bible, here's a list I've been gathering for quite some time:

Biblical Contradictions - by category (http://nullgod.com/index.php/topic,5.0.html)

I hope it's not against the rules to post that here, if so, sorry, let me know and I'll get rid of it.

[Niamh]

I hadn't intended to bring up the subject myself, but since The Atheist did, and others may be interested in the subject of (apparent) contradictions in the Bible, here's a list I've been gathering for quite some time:

Biblical Contradictions - by category (http://nullgod.com/index.php/topic,5.0.html)

I hope it's not against the rules to post that here, if so, sorry, let me know and I'll get rid of it.

very interesting! And very contradictory indeed!

[Pendragon]

If I wish to teach that anything is right or wrong, I am certain that I can search the Bible long enough to find things to support my views. I read your "contradictions" carefully, as one should anything one reads. I could do the same with quotations from say, Darwin, and show that he contradicts himself in what he says-- by selectively choosing quotes and placing them in wrong contexts. Part of your quotes, this section, for example:

[13. Is God's every word pure?
Yes
Ps 12:6
Quote
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
119:140
Quote
Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.
Pr 30:5
Quote
Every word of God is pure: He is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
No
2 Kng 18:27
Quote
But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?
Ezk 23:20
Quote
For she doted on their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.
Hab 2:16
Quote
Thou art filled with shame for glory: drink thou also, and let thy foreskin be uncovered; the cup of the LORD's right hand shall be turned unto thee, and shameful spewing shall be on thy glory.
Mal 2:3
Quote
Behold, I will corrupt you seed, and spread dung upon you faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it.

The NO quotes taken in context have nothing to do with God’s word being pure. Interesting that you have taken time to examin things this closely, however. Many Christians could learn from you how to study the Bible! God Bless!

Pen

[Unbeliever]

I could do the same with quotations from say, Darwin, and show that he contradicts himself in what he says-- by selectively choosing quotes and placing them in wrong contexts.
Pen

I've heard people say this before - but I've yet to see anyone actually do it.

[hyperborean]

Of course the bible is going to contradict itself. It's written by hundreds of people.

[Unbeliever]

Here's one that gives contradictory advice in consecutive verses:

89. Should we answer a fool according to his folly?
Yes
Pr 26:5
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

No
Pr 26:4
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

I don't see how those are "taken out of context."

[Redzeppelin]

Here's one that gives contradictory advice in consecutive verses:

89. Should we answer a fool according to his folly?
Yes
Pr 26:5
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

No
Pr 26:4
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

I don't see how those are "taken out of context."


Easily dealt with. The difference in the first portion of the proverb (the addition of "not") is reflected in the end of the proverb: the first one is advice geared towards correction of the fool; the second is advice concerning the non-fool's avoidance of becoming like a fool. I would suggest that both proverbs are correct within a given context: i.e. there are times where you ought not answer a fool in order to avoid joining him in his foolishness; there are other times you ought to correct the fool in order for his own good. The situation, circumstances and parties involved (along with guidance from God) would assist the individual in deciding which proverbial advice is the more appropriate. This is a no-brainer because there is almost always an exception to any rule-of-thumb.

As I posted earlier, this kind of stuff is not enough to invalidate the Bible; as the transcendant record of the character of God, details such as this example (which does not deal with Christian theology per se) do not in any serious way detract from the coherence of the Bible.

[weepingforloman]

One apparent theological contradiction is the issue of free will vs God's omniscience. Some people struggle with Romans 9:23 and its statement "What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy whom He prepared in advance for glory" as being predestination (but it's not) - which would contradict the apostle Paul's constant commands for us to "choose" whom we will serve. You won't find theological contradictions in the Bible - but you may find disagreements in the details of some of the eyewitness accounts. These in no way reduce the validity of the Bible; if anything, they attest to the eyewitness nature of its writing - because a "manufactured" (as opposed to divinely inspired) text (as many unbelievers claim the Bible to be) would not contain some of the discrepancies apparent in the Bible.

I addressed this in another thread, but I'll present my version again:
We freely choose to follow God because He Himself predestined our wills to be freed. Following God's action of freeing the will, the person chooses to believe. There is no total contradiction between the free will and God's predestination (I personally believe I can do nothing to earn my own salvation, which I totally believe will happen, which means that God must have predestined me to faith, and it is only through His action that I can believe). I recommend reading Calvin's actual work, it is very difficult to read, but also very rewarding.

Grace and Peace to you all in the name of Jesus Christ.

[ennison]

It's an anthology. Different people contributed to it at different times.Bazarov's reply seems common sense to me.

[Pendragon]

I've heard people say this before - but I've yet to see anyone actually do it.Probably because people are too lazy. I'll admit to that myself, quite freely! If you cannot be honest, you are a poor example of a Christian. But I have read Darwin a couple times and I consider evolution (species adapting to changing environmets) correct. I just don't buy chance as the universe creator. For that, we need God.

God Bless.

Pen.

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l108/AbsalomKane/Smilies/PuppyLove.gif





Here's one that gives contradictory advice in consecutive verses:

89. Should we answer a fool according to his folly?
Yes
Pr 26:5
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

No
Pr 26:4
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

I don't see how those are "taken out of context."



Easily dealt with. The difference in the first portion of the proverb (the addition of "not") is reflected in the end of the proverb: the first one is advice geared towards correction of the fool; the second is advice concerning the non-fool's avoidance of becoming like a fool. I would suggest that both proverbs are correct within a given context: i.e. there are times where you ought not answer a fool in order to avoid joining him in his foolishness; there are other times you ought to correct the fool in order for his own good. The situation, circumstances and parties involved (along with guidance from God) would assist the individual in deciding which proverbial advice is the more appropriate. This is a no-brainer because there is almost always an exception to any rule-of-thumb.

As I posted earlier, this kind of stuff is not enough to invalidate the Bible; as the transcendant record of the character of God, details such as this example (which does not deal with Christian theology per se) do not in any serious way detract from the coherence of the Bible.

I think Red is on the right track. First would be "Show him just how wrong he is." and the second, "Be sure you don't end up sounding stupid yourself."

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l108/AbsalomKane/Smilies/PuppyLove.gif

[The Atheist]

Atheist, you are comparing two different situations, and therefore we have two different meanings.
Firstly, before the court, they are both mocking him, they don't know him and they are having fun. But, after watching his agony, one of them is changing his mind and he is realizing His greatness. So Jesus saves him the same exact day.

Not sure that works but nice try!


But I don't know what did Christians do to you...:lol:

Nothing at all. I find christianity quite quaint - people want there to be a god, and bingo, there's a handy one.

The bible amuses me though - I have long list of either contradictions or ridiculous commentaries. It's a lot more of a problem for people who follow the OT, though. Take the ones who use Leviticus to try and deny gays; those same people will eat shellfish and shave, even though they're prohibited in the same chapter.


Four people on one place in same time would tell you 4 similar stories, but never exact the same 4 stories. Therefore, we have 4 similar stories about the same thing; 4 Gospels.

The problem with that is that there is no doubt at all among biblical scholars that all four gospel authors were NOT at the crucuifixon and it's possible none of them were. I'll have to check out the details if you need them, but even august bodies such as RCC accept that two of the gospels are written much later and based upon one of the existing ones. I can never remember the precise details, but can track them down, if needed.


I hadn't intended to bring up the subject myself, but since The Atheist did, and others may be interested in the subject of (apparent) contradictions in the Bible, here's a list I've been gathering for quite some time:

Biblical Contradictions - by category (http://nullgod.com/index.php/topic,5.0.html)

I hope it's not against the rules to post that here, if so, sorry, let me know and I'll get rid of it.

Nice work. I'll link to that from my own site.

Can't imagine that being against the rules, you're entitled to link as long as copyright and decency rules aren't broken and they don't do that.

[Unbeliever]

Even the RCC is no longer claiming the Bible to be completely inerrant:
Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article574768.ece)

[The Atheist]

As I posted earlier, this kind of stuff is not enough to invalidate the Bible; as the transcendant record of the character of God, details such as this example (which does not deal with Christian theology per se) do not in any serious way detract from the coherence of the Bible.

Sure, but dont you find it just a little bit ironic that YECs will take the bible literally as regards the making of the earth and man and the flood, yet so much of the rest of it has to be twisted allegorically to get it to mean what they want?

How about those 800-year old people? Or the iron chariots which were too tough for god to beat? Or why people don't obey Moses' rules for eating and living as laid out in Leviticus? Or, as in Unbeleiever's first set of contradiction, exactly how many gods there are? Or why god created Satan?


Even the RCC is no longer claiming the Bible to be completely inerrant:
Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article574768.ece)

Yes, the RCC is nothing if not devout in its attention to detail as times change and evidence is uncovered which refutes the bible.

Flat earth, anyone?

Things the RCC does NOT believe:

That god created the earth and man as described in Genesis.

That Noah's flood happened.

That Sodm and Gomorrah happened.

That homosexuality is an abomination.

That earth is 6011 years old

That Methuselah [and others] lived for 800+ years.

That the sun goes around the earth.

That the earth is flat.That Jonah survived inside a whale for three days.

These are nothing like a complete list.


....I could do the same with quotations from say, Darwin, and show that he contradicts himself in what he says-- by selectively choosing quotes and placing them in wrong contexts....

Starter for ten....

Go ahead. Please.

Ensure you give details of quotes, because I don't believe it. He updated his views as he found more evidence - that's what science does (and religion - see the two previous posts to this!) - he was aware that new evidence may require modification of old results.

But Darwin contradict himself flat-out like the bible - I think not.

[bazarov]

Not sure that works but nice try!
I'm sure you understand what I mean.



Nothing at all. I find christianity quite quaint - people want there to be a god, and bingo, there's a handy one.
And so in every other religion.




The problem with that is that there is no doubt at all among biblical scholars that all four gospel authors were NOT at the crucuifixon and it's possible none of them were. I'll have to check out the details if you need them, but even august bodies such as RCC accept that two of the gospels are written much later and based upon one of the existing ones. I can never remember the precise details, but can track them down, if needed.

You're wrong, I'm afraid. John was definitely there, you surely remember this:

John, chapter 19

25Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," 27and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.

That disciple is John. So if you really want, you can take his as a relevant one.

[Pendragon]

Starter for ten....

Go ahead. Please.

Ensure you give details of quotes, because I don't believe it. He updated his views as he found more evidence - that's what science does (and religion - see the two previous posts to this!) - he was aware that new evidence may require modification of old results.

But Darwin contradict himself flat-out like the bible - I think not.

To what purpose, pray tell? If I take the time to do all of this you will still shoot it down, for your mind is already made up about how things should be.

"Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." A Bible passage.

I am perfectly willing to allow you to believe what you want to believe. You are not going to convince me that I'm wrong in my belief on God. Perhaps you missed the point where I stated openly that evolution had to take place, fairly much as Darwin surmised, species adapting to a changing world. It is the world's start that I feel took God. I have myself argued that the creation as reported in the Bible leaves much wiggle room for interputation, and I don't argue with Science over how old the Earth is. Lots of things can be taken the wrong way. Hopefully, it won't be this post.

God Bless (Just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean I can't pray for you anyway, you know. Every now and again, we could all use a little help.)

Pen

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l108/AbsalomKane/Smilies/PuppyLove.gif

[apples of gold]

I agree that there are stark contradictions found in the bible. Some of them are designed to illicit our response to moral dilemmas, hence the quandary. Other contradictions seem to grip the reader when considering the Bible as a whole. And that's the problem. As a believer in God, I think the Bible could very well have started out as the undisputed word of God. But organized religion being what it is, has ensured that the masses are reading what was decided at the time to be politically correct inclusions in the canon. Subsequent versions have followed the model.

[The Atheist]

To what purpose, pray tell? If I take the time to do all of this you will still shoot it down, for your mind is already made up about how things should be.

Nope, completely wrong.

You show me an example and I'll believe you. I have no pre-written agenda - it's religious people who start from a priori "knowledge".


I am perfectly willing to allow you to believe what you want to believe.

I believe evidence. Other than that, I have no beliefs.


You are not going to convince me that I'm wrong in my belief on God.

Good. That wasn't the intent of the thread.


I'm sure you understand what I mean.

The way the gospels are written doesn't completely discount your idea, but it seems unlikely.


And so in every other religion.


You're wrong, I'm afraid. John was definitely there, you surely remember this:

John, chapter 19

That disciple is John. So if you really want, you can take his as a relevant one.

I don't get that clearly from the gospel itself, I'd always assumed it was a different disciple, but I'll take it your way. If I get time, I'll track down the chronology.

[ennison]

Bazarov is right. Anyway apart from the question of why God created Satan none of these nit-picking criticisms amount to much. I've probably said elsewhere that I don't believe in evolutionary mumbo-jumbo but I do believe in change and adaption. After all that's common sense.
Jonah's story is a foreshadowing of Christ's three days in the tomb. What the RCC believe about Jonah I do not know but it does not say it was a whale in The Bible. So if one intends to pick nits it pays to be attentive to the detail - as one monkey said to another

[weepingforloman]

Just as Adam and Eve did not eat an apple-- I actually know the history of this one, though. "Malum" in Latin means both "apple" and "bad." The apple was chosen because it conveniently underscores the message. The fruit is not named in the Bible.

[JGL57]

The Garden of Eden narrative is a great allegorical tale - Jungian archetypes and all that. Taking it literally, though, would mean that reality as a whole is a Twilight Zone episode.

[The Atheist]

What the RCC believe about Jonah I do not know but it does not say it was a whale in The Bible. So if one intends to pick nits it pays to be attentive to the detail - as one monkey said to another

No, it's you who has it wrong. The bible mentions "a great fish". Given that whales and fish were identical in the minds of men a couple of thousand years back, that "great fish" is undoubtedly a whale, unless you can think of another animal capable of doing the trick. Detail indeed.

[Pendragon]

Actually guys, it says both, I recall this, since I once witnessed two ministers get in a heated argument when one tried to correct the other when the one was preaching:

Jonah 1:17 Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

Matthew. 12:39-40 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonah:

for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

End of argument. (Might I point out the words Now The Lord had prepared in the first record of this.) This would seem to indicate that this was a one-time special made aquatic animal. Whales today cannot swallow a man, and if they could, you wouldn't survive very long inside one!

God Bless

Pen

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l108/AbsalomKane/Smilies/PuppyLove.gif

[Pendragon]

Nope, completely wrong.

You show me an example and I'll believe you. I have no pre-written agenda - it's religious people who start from a priori "knowledge".



I believe evidence. Other than that, I have no beliefs.
Somehow I would really love to believe that I could change your mindset by tearing into Origin of the Species. But I think of the complexity of a simple butterfly, and how many DNA triggers have to come up true to make it say, a Monarch rather than a Swallowtail, and the very mathematics staggers the mind. Chance is a cruel mistress as any gambler who plays the game fairly could tell you. Yet you are willing to accept chance as the basis for everything here, and no intelligent design. That little butterfly is enough for me to know that there is a Creator. I cannot make you any argument you would see. What I would call fact, you would call fantasy. But, I will not depart as an enemy. My hand in friendship and my prayers offered. We may take different views, and the possibility even lies that neither of us is correct, but we will march on.

God bless you.

Pen.

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l108/AbsalomKane/Smilies/PuppyLove.gif

[The Atheist]

Somehow I would really love to believe that I could change your mindset by tearing into Origin of the Species.

It's not a question of changing my mind-set, you claimed there were contradictions in the work and I'm not aware of any.

That is either true or false, no opinion required. If you wish to back up your statement, then note at least one contradiction, otherwise, I suggest you stop pushing that barrow.


But I think of the complexity of a simple butterfly, and how many DNA triggers have to come up true to make it say, a Monarch rather than a Swallowtail, and the very mathematics staggers the mind.

Oh boy, do I get bored with explaining this to christians, because it appears that none of them understand calculus or advanced mathematics. Unfortunately, many of you have been sucked into believing utter lies from a couple of christian "scientists" who make all sorts of absurd claims about the chances of evolution being spontaneous. Unfortunately, they have been shown time and time again to be lying. Since this isn't something I can explain adequately to you, unless you are at the advanced calculus stage, I can only suggest you spend time asking some actual mathematicians about the actual algorithms which have been developed. If you have the time, this forum (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5) will answer all the questions. This exact subject has been discussed to death there and algorithms are given.

I really do find it highly annoying that the uninitiated make these silly statements about mathematics, which are 100% incorrect.


Chance is a cruel mistress as any gambler who plays the game fairly could tell you. Yet you are willing to accept chance as the basis for everything here, and no intelligent design.

Glad you looked at it that way, because I am indeed a gambler and have been for all my life and nobody, even mathematicians, understand odds and probability like gamblers.

The bad news is, you're making another typical christian mistake in using the word "chance". There is precious little chance involved in evolution in the way you mean it - the odds of rolling a die, for instance. Nobody knows or can predict with better than 1:6 accuracy what the next throw will be. (This is why there are no professional craps or roulette players.)

Evolution is about a mixture of genetic selection for favourable traits (no chance at all) and random chance - mutation by virus, for example.

Intelligent design? No. If you have a look at all of the arguments for intelligent design, not one of them goes beyond "goddidit" and the facts do not fit the hypothesis. That's why no scientist worthy of the name accepts ID and why 97% of NAS scientists disbelieve it.

As I have taken pains to point out to another christian poster here, the entire argument for ID consists of "the bible says so" and isn't backed up by even one single piece of scientific, mathematical or reasonable evidence.


That little butterfly is enough for me to know that there is a Creator. I cannot make you any argument you would see. What I would call fact, you would call fantasy.

Yep, and as always, the difference between us is that the facts I use are actual, scientifically provable ones, while yours are a priori "goddidit".

As always, you're welcome to your views, grown in ignorance and fertilised with christianity, but please try to stop making base errors when discussing it. I really do get quite disappointed that seemingly rational and intelligent people make uninformed statements about mathematics and evolution without even having a slight understanding of the facts.

I can see your arguments, just as I can see Thomas Aquinas'. They just don't work in any way, without, as Tommy suggested, that a priori "knowledge" that god exists.

[Redzeppelin]

Sure, but dont you find it just a little bit ironic that YECs will take the bible literally as regards the making of the earth and man and the flood, yet so much of the rest of it has to be twisted allegorically to get it to mean what they want?

No "twisting" required. Language functions both metaphorically and literally. I dealt with the apparent contradiction without resorting to any sort "it's metaphoric" stuff - so why are you bringing it up now?


How about those 800-year old people? Or the iron chariots which were too tough for god to beat? Or why people don't obey Moses' rules for eating and living as laid out in Leviticus? Or, as in Unbeleiever's first set of contradiction, exactly how many gods there are? Or why god created Satan?

What about them? This thread is on contradictions. If you wish to talk about things that you find hard to believe, well good grief, we'll have to start with Genesis Ch. 1 and go line by line to Revelation Ch. 22. Why should I spend even 5 minutes trying to explain things to someone who has already made it clear that his philosophical position (atheism) begins from the premise that God doesn't exist? If God doesn't exist, then sure - the whole Bible is silly. But if He does - well, then everything in opposition to Him becomes beyond silly. But don't ask believers to explain things to you that you're already predisposed to dismiss. That's a waste of our time (and our time is valuable too).


As always, you're welcome to your views, grown in ignorance and fertilised with christianity, but please try to stop making base errors when discussing it. I really do get quite disappointed that seemingly rational and intelligent people make uninformed statements about mathematics and evolution without even having a slight understanding of the facts.

Please. Please. Lay off the "grown in ignorance" bit - I get exceedingly tired of atheists or evolutionists who act as if they are the only intelligent beings who are capable of rational, reasonable thinking; spare me. Your thinking does not occur in a vacuum - it occurs within the philosophic framework you've chosen to believe in - Naturalism. Naturalists and Christians engage in the same sort of "question-begging" of beginning from a premise that they assume to be true and then plugging in "evidence" that they see in the world around them that conforms to that view; the big difference is that the atheist will often pretend that he came about his views by rational inquiry of "the facts" - which is the height of self-delusion. The atheist began from the premise that God isn't real and then simply looked for evidence to confirm that opinon; the Christian does likewise, except that he begins from the premise that God is real and then looks about the universe and finds that which confirms his beliefs. At least Christians (most, some?) will admit such - few atheists that I've come across here will fess up that that's really what's going on.

Likewise with the patronizing bit about calculus - I'm a teacher and I know that good teachers can take complicated things and present them in a way that others can understand. Why don't you give us a little demonstration of your highly (self) touted abilities and make things clear to us so that you don't have to keep batting away our annoying little questions about the mathematics involved in evolution (the numbers of which stagger the mind in terms of probability)?

That would be far more refreshing than what I'm currently reading and responding to.

[Unbeliever]

Actually guys, it says both, I recall this, since I once witnessed two ministers get in a heated argument when one tried to correct the other when the one was preaching:

Jonah 1:17 Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

Matthew. 12:39-40 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonah:

for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

End of argument. (Might I point out the words Now The Lord had prepared in the first record of this.) This would seem to indicate that this was a one-time special made aquatic animal. Whales today cannot swallow a man, and if they could, you wouldn't survive very long inside one!

God Bless

Pen

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l108/AbsalomKane/Smilies/PuppyLove.gif

But was Jesus, in fact, three days and three nights in the tomb? If he was crucified on Friday, and was already risen by early Sunday morning when Mary (and maybe others) came to the tomb, then he was not in "the heart of the earth" for three days and three nights, regardless of what he predicted.

[bazarov]

But was Jesus, in fact, three days and three nights in the tomb? If he was crucified on Friday, and was already risen by early Sunday morning when Mary (and maybe others) came to the tomb, then he was not in "the heart of the earth" for three days and three nights, regardless of what he predicted.

No.
He wasn't lying in his tomb for three days, he had risen on third day. Friday is first, Saturday is second and Sunday is the third.
Many many people are very wrong on this point, and I really don't understand why.


If God doesn't exist, then sure - the whole Bible is silly.

No. No matter of do you believe it or not, you must admit it's a great and moral book, probably the greatest ever written.

But don't ask believers to explain things to you that you're already predisposed to dismiss. That's a waste of our time (and our time is valuable too).
You are probably right in this point, but I have to disagree in some things. Quoting without good and logical explanations are not useless, they are actually harmful.



I don't get that clearly from the gospel itself, I'd always assumed it was a different disciple, but I'll take it your way. If I get time, I'll track down the chronology.

I'll try to find quote( my Mom, actually :) , but I am 100000% sure that John was his favorite disciple.

[Unbeliever]

No.
He wasn't lying in his tomb for three days, he had risen on third day. Friday is first, Saturday is second and Sunday is the third.
Many many people are very wrong on this point, and I really don't understand why.

Because he didn't just say he'd be "in the heart of the earth" for three days, but three nights, as well. He could only have been in the tomb Friday night and Saturday night, and that's only two nights, not three.

[ennison]

'Given that whales and fish were identical in the minds of men a couple of thousand years back, that "great fish" is undoubtedly a whale,'

Now that is an assumption.

To me the story is not a fishy tale at all.
The creator can intervene in its creation.
Nobody who is created can do that.
It might have been a gigantic cod for all I care but it does not say it was and it does not say it was a whale either. Jonah was punished for disobedience and whether this was by really being swallowed or by being plunged into a condition of near death does not particularly bother me and has not bothered me since I saw what the story was really about.

[hyperborean]

The creator can intervene in its creation.


Then that contradicts this "christian freewill" you all speak of.

[The Atheist]

No "twisting" required. Language functions both metaphorically and literally. I dealt with the apparent contradiction without resorting to any sort "it's metaphoric" stuff - so why are you bringing it up now?

You're doing yourself false justice here, I'm afraid, I wasn't referring to you. If however, you throw your hat in the YEC ring, then you must wear the charges which go with it.

Just one piece of evidence, please. That's all I ask of YEC proponents. Something which is actually true, and perceived as true outside of YEC circles. Until such time, I have issues to discuss with people who go beyond mere speculation of YEC.

And unless you're going to finally be the one, after thirty years of asking, to provide the evidence, please do so asap.

I will just note this one point in closing:


Why should I spend even 5 minutes trying to explain things to someone who has already made it clear that his philosophical position (atheism) begins from the premise that God doesn't exist?

I really am quite annoyed that you keep posting this utter fabrication, however.

Please refer to St Thomas Aquinas' Summae Theologica. If he can't convince you about a priori knowledge, I certainly can't. I don't really care which particular sect you come from, if you and your "pastors" don't accept Aquinas' proofs, I would have to doubt whether your sect is actually christian.

It is christianity which commences with a priori knowledge. Atheism is the result of making a posteriori analysis.

It matters not how many times you try to make the above claim, as I'm sure in your mind it's true, but it makes you appear foolish in trying to perpetuate such an easily-dismissed piece of christian propaganda.


No.
He wasn't lying in his tomb for three days, he had risen on third day. Friday is first, Saturday is second and Sunday is the third.
Many many people are very wrong on this point, and I really don't understand why.

Me neither, Fri/Sat/Sun always counts as three days on my abacus!


No. No matter of do you believe it or not, you must admit it's a great and moral book, probably the greatest ever written.

Glad you can see that. Viewed and interpreted correctly, the bible contains a blueprint for moral values which may or may not have a hard-wired component. (I suspect not, but the jury's still out - they haven't got past Game Theory yet, AFAIK)

I'm always a little surprised that mainstream christianity doesn't create more waves at the apparent hijack of the bible by US fundamentalists. I guess it's the devil they know as opposed to just the Devil. [atheism] ;)


You are probably right in this point, but I have to disagree in some things. Quoting without good and logical explanations are not useless, they are actually harmful.

Again, you've made a good point, which I hope Red picks up. Please be aware that my mind, like many I associate with is open to new evidence at all times. As I tell my christian friends, if one day a god chose to reveal himself to me, I'd be the most fervent bible-basher in the country!


I'll try to find quote( my Mom, actually :) , but I am 100000% sure that John was his favorite disciple.

Certainly the most-quoted. 3:15.

[Unbeliever]

I certainly didn't begin with an a priori premise that God does not exist. I was raised in a Southern Baptist family (actually, several, but all were Southern Baptists), and I became born-again when I was about 14. I was, for quite a while, "on fire for God," and only began to question after I'd read the entire Bible cover to cover. I then started reading lots of other stuff, both Christian and otherwise, and I eventually lost my faith.

[The Atheist]

I certainly didn't begin with an a priori premise that God does not exist. I was raised in a Southern Baptist family (actually, several, but all were Southern Baptists), and I became born-again when I was about 14. I was, for quite a while, "on fire for God," and only began to question after I'd read the entire Bible cover to cover. I then started reading lots of other stuff, both Christian and otherwise, and I eventually lost my faith.

I post at two atheist boards and I find that that's the position of almost all of them - brought up in faith, lost it when questions were asked. Good on ya!

[bazarov]

Because he didn't just say he'd be "in the heart of the earth" for three days, but three nights, as well. He could only have been in the tomb Friday night and Saturday night, and that's only two nights, not three.


I will quote Jesus, that should be the most and only relevant in this situation:
Matthew, chapter 17

22When they came together in Galilee, he said to them, "The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. 23They will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised to life." And the disciples were filled with grief.

There are only two nights between three days, so everything looks clear to me.



It might have been a gigantic cod for all I care but it does not say it was and it does not say it was a whale either. Jonah was punished for disobedience and whether this was by really being swallowed or by being plunged into a condition of near death does not particularly bother me and has not bothered me since I saw what the story was really about.
Good point.

[Pendragon]

As always, you're welcome to your views, grown in ignorance and fertilised with christianity, but please try to stop making base errors when discussing it. I really do get quite disappointed that seemingly rational and intelligent people make uninformed statements about mathematics and evolution without even having a slight understanding of the facts.

I can see your arguments, just as I can see Thomas Aquinas'. They just don't work in any way, without, as Tommy suggested, that a priori "knowledge" that god exists. Do me a favor. I have been patient and polite with you. Do not call me ignorant, mon ami. My views do not match yours, fine, so you assume that I know nothing and must be an ignorant Christian. My questioning of diehard beliefs has always seperated me from the herd. If you wish to call names and question one's intelligence, please go back and read the rules. And you pick and choose what you want to read from my own posts. If you think I do not understand probability, I play poker. I also graduated Summa Cum Laude when I became disabled and returned to school after 21 years to get an AAS degree in IST. Computer programing requires math skills.

God bless.

Pen

[Scheherazade]

If you wish to call names and question one's intelligence, please go back and read the rules. I think that is a good advice for everyone involved.


The fact that some people do not share your views and beliefs does not make them less intelligent or less knowledgeable.

Such comments will not be tolerated and be removed without any further notice in future.

[Unbeliever]

I will quote Jesus, that should be the most and only relevant in this situation:
Matthew, chapter 17


There are only two nights between three days, so everything looks clear to me.


You quoted a different passage before:


Matthew. 12:39-40 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonah:

for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Does that say that he will be three nights in the heart of the earth, or does it not say that he will be three nights in the heart of the earth?

[bazarov]

Unbeliever, Pendragon was talking about Jonah, not me, and I don't see relation between Jesus and Jonah. What Pendragon said


for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

is wrong in my opinion, Bible is very exact in this.

I was talking about Jesus and his time in tomb and I'll repeat, just in case you get something wrong.
I will quote Jesus, that should be the most and only relevant in this situation:
Matthew, chapter 17

22When they came together in Galilee, he said to them, "The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. 23They will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised to life." And the disciples were filled with grief.



Does that say that he will be three nights in the heart of the earth, or does it not say that he will be three nights in the heart of the earth?

So no, it doesn't say he will be in tomb for three nights.

[Redzeppelin]

I really am quite annoyed that you keep posting this utter fabrication, however.

Please refer to St Thomas Aquinas' Summae Theologica. If he can't convince you about a priori knowledge, I certainly can't. I don't really care which particular sect you come from, if you and your "pastors" don't accept Aquinas' proofs, I would have to doubt whether your sect is actually christian.

It is christianity which commences with a priori knowledge. Atheism is the result of making a posteriori analysis.

It matters not how many times you try to make the above claim, as I'm sure in your mind it's true, but it makes you appear foolish in trying to perpetuate such an easily-dismissed piece of christian propaganda.



Dismiss if you like - human beings are fairly incapable of full objectivity. Everybody has "filters" through which s/he looks at the world. Your post proves what I said: few atheists I've run into will admit that they have chosen a particular way to view the world and have found "evidence" to corroborate that view. Both atheists and Christians begin by begging-the-question, but atheists (many, at least) wish to pretend that they are some sort of completely rational computer that examined the world, found evidence for God lacking and decided He didn't exist. No - maybe some experience that, but people who believe in God find the evidence they're looking for too. Your "evidence" (if you have any) that God doesn't exist holds as much validity as mine probably does for you - what makes yours more authoritative? Don't say "evidence" - you cannot prove God doesn't exist - all you can prove is that there are things in existence that seem to contradict the vision of God that's in YOUR head. That doesn't mean you're right - it just means you have what you believe to be definitive "proof" that God isn't real.

Aquinas is an intelligent chap, but part of his problem is that he wishes to argue on your playing field by arguing "proofs" and such; noble as that is, Thomas can only ultimately fail in defending the existence of God for the primary reason that he's arguing by your rules - and that cannot work. I think the good saint is very intelligent and I like his "proofs" for the existence of God - but without allowing for the presuppositional foundations that we stand upon even before we start arguing, his "evidence" can ultimately be brought into question because he's acknowledging the validity of your philosophical view (atheism). Coming from the presupposition that God is real, atheism makes zero rational sense. That's where Aquinas paints himself into a corner. To get you to engage, he had to admit the rationality of your position and then try to provide rational "evidence" that you'd accept. That ultimately fails.

You, my friend, are not some logic machine processing the world indifferently and impartially; your views are as biased and skewed as you believe mine to be - but you deny such a thing. Too bad - because to be unable to acknowledge the biases by which one interprets life is to be unclear on why it is one sees what one does.

[Unbeliever]

Unbeliever, Pendragon was talking about Jonah, not me,

Oops, sorry bazarov, I'll try to pay more attention in the future!

[bazarov]

:) Everything OK, glad it's solved!

[ennison]

'' "christian freewill" '' Well I see freewill as being common to us all. We all behave as if we have it.
I'm sure that I cannot raise myself by my own bootstraps - neither can street magicians- and likewise I am unable to throw a significant spanner in the running of the Creation.

[The Atheist]

Do me a favor. I have been patient and polite with you. Do not call me ignorant, mon ami. My views do not match yours, fine, so you assume that I know nothing and must be an ignorant Christian.

Now, I'd just like to note that I was not being abusive in any way. Your ignorance was evinced by the statement you made regarding probability in connection with butterflies and DNA.

{edit}

I certainly did not at any stage call you an ignorant christian, nor did I suggest you know nothing, but it's equally plain that you know very little of the actual facts regarding DNA and selection.
Sorry you took it the wrong way.


'' "christian freewill" '' Well I see freewill as being common to us all. We all behave as if we have it.
I'm sure that I cannot raise myself by my own bootstraps - neither can street magicians- and likewise I am unable to throw a significant spanner in the running of the Creation.

You may like to do some study on this subject, because all evidence to date points to "free will" being little more than an illusion created by multiple choice. Way off subject, so if you'd like to start a thread on it, I'll happily expand.

[Pendragon]

Unbeliever, Pendragon was talking about Jonah, not me, and I don't see relation between Jesus and Jonah. What Pendragon said



is wrong in my opinion, Bible is very exact in this.

I was talking about Jesus and his time in tomb and I'll repeat, just in case you get something wrong.
I will quote Jesus, that should be the most and only relevant in this situation:
Matthew, chapter 17




So no, it doesn't say he will be in tomb for three nights.What Pendragon said was a direct quote from the Bible, Jesus speaking, Matthew. 12:39-40. If I am wrong, mon ami, then the passage I quoted was wrong, and therefore Jesus Himself was wrong. Carefully measure the scriptures. There is often He said and He also said.

God Bless.

Pen

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l108/AbsalomKane/Smilies/PuppyLove.gif

[Pendragon]

Now, I'd just like to note that I was not being abusive in any way. Your ignorance was evinced by the statement you made regarding probability in connection with butterflies and DNA.

{edit}

I certainly did not at any stage call you an ignorant christian, nor did I suggest you know nothing, but it's equally plain that you know very little of the actual facts regarding DNA and selection.
Sorry you took it the wrong way.

You are so wrong. I know more than you think about DNA, it does a grand job of proving guilt or innocence in crimes. But one flag is all it takes to come out wrong, to disprove the evidence. One marker can make or break a case. You can get the DNA evidence down to 1 in billions of chances of being wrong, and you have your man or woman. Mitochondria DNA comes only from the mother's side and is used sometimes to make a more exact match. Lay off my intellect, OK?

Thank you.

Pen