Bible logic Puzzle

ISAW

Several prople have been posting on this site about "contradictions" in the Bible. Usually these are culled from a cut and paste from some other site and the poster didnt discover this themselves. Some time ago I came across the following puzzle. I am not going to list the author but I can tell you if you discove the authors identity you will not find the answer where the problem is given so no trying to cheat.

so all you "errors in the Bible" buffs have a go at this one and see if youcan solve it.

Jacob's extended family at the time he moved to Egypt is listed in the Bible, but some information about one descendant may have been purposely hidden. If there is no mistake in the following summary and interpretation of the Biblical account, what can you logically deduce about the identity of Jacob's missing descendant?

1. All seventy living souls of the house of Jacob, including all of his living male and female descendants, were in Egypt when he arrived there with those who accompanied him. (Gen. 46:6, 27).

2. Sixty-six of Jacob's descendants came to Egypt with him. This count includes only Jacob's literal offspring; none of his sons' wives is included (Gen. 46:26).

3. Except for Joseph and his two sons, who already resided in Egypt (Gen. 46:27), Jacob took with him all of his son(s), his sons' son(s), his daughter(s), his sons' daughter(s) (Gen. 46:7), and all of his great-grandchildren ("little ones," Gen. 46:5).

4. These are the names of Jacob's descendants when they had all arrived in Egypt, along with subtotals for each of his four wives (Leah, Zilpah, Rachel, and Bilhah):


a. Leah had 33 living descendants. Her sons were Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun, and her daughter was Dinah. Reuben's sons were Hanoch, Phallu, Hezron and Carmi. Simeon's sons were Jemuel, Jamin, Ohad, Jachin, Zohar, and Shaul the son of a Cannaanitish woman. Levi's sons were Gershon, Kohath and Merari. Judah's sons were Er, Onan, Shelah, Pharez, and Zerah, but Er and Onan had died previously. Pharez' sons were Hezron and Hamul. Issachar's sons were Tola, Phuvah, Job and Shimron. Zebulun's sons were Sered, Elon and Jahleel (Gen. 46:8-15).

b. Zilpah had 16 living descendants. Her sons were Gad and Asher. Gad's sons were Ziphion, Haggi, Shuni, Ezbon, Eri, Arodi, and Areli. Asher's sons were Jimnah, Ishuah, Isui and Beriah, and Serah was their sister. Beriah's sons were Heber and Malchiel (Gen. 46:16-18).

c. Rachel had 14 living descendants. Her sons were Joseph and Benjamin. In Egypt, the sons of Joseph and his wife Asenath, daughter of an Egyptian priest, were Manasseh and Ephraim. Benjamin's sons were Belah, Becher, Ashbel, Gera, Naaman, Ehi, Rosh, Muppim, Huppim, and Ard (Gen. 46:19-22).

d. Bilhah had 7 living descendants. Her sons were Dan and Naphtali. Dan's son was Hushim. Naphtali's sons were Jahzeel, Guni, Jezer and Shillem (Gen. 46:23-25).

Excelsior

Genealogies are an accepted Semitic genre in their own right. They were never intended to be an exhaustative list of predeccessors but a rough orientation of where the person had come from.

Reading the passages in context (just like with the Christmas genealogies) will show how this is an apparent contradiction.

ISAW

Excelsior wrote:

Genealogies are an accepted Semitic genre in their own right. They were never intended to be an exhaustative list of predeccessors but a rough orientation of where the person had come from.

Reading the passages in context (just like with the Christmas genealogies) will show how this is an apparent contradiction.

Wow! where are all these people who are constantly posting in their "expert" knowledge about errors in the Bible? Ten days and NONE of them have posted! amazing! I thought they were really interested in the subject.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote:

Wow! where are all these people who are constantly posting in their "expert" knowledge about errors in the Bible? Ten days and NONE of them have posted! amazing! I thought they were really interested in the subject.

Personally I can't figure out what you are actually asking? Though geneology is never my strong point. Is there a decendent missing?

I tend to stick to the "Pi is 3", or "The Sun moved" type errors in the Bible.

Dades

I think there's an extra offspring listed than the 66 mentioned that supposedly came to Egypt with Jacob...

Muppim and Huppim weren't siamese twins by any chance?

robindch

> where are all these people who are constantly posting in their "expert"
> knowledge about errors in the Bible?

We're around alright! The issue I have is the word "context" has been used to resolve the contradiction. In the past, this word has been used in a post-modern, lit-crit, way to explain how the bible is not homophobic, not misogynistic etc etc. It's a bit like my favorite boo-word "ethos" -- something which is used more to stop discussion than to help it along!

Which isn't to say that the bible should, or even can, be read free of any historical context, but rather that a consistent one should be used, and one which is informed in all areas by scholarship. For example, that the sayings of Jesus are likely to have been made up to be roughly in line with what the author thought the protagonist would have said in a given situation -- that was simply the way that biographies were written back then.

Alternatively, it could be that none of the critics' side are actually all that worried about who is said to have begat who

bonkey

ISAW wrote:

Wow! where are all these people who are constantly posting in their "expert" knowledge about errors in the Bible? Ten days and NONE of them have posted! amazing! I thought they were really interested in the subject.

Whatever about anyone else, I can say that I didn't even bother trying.

Here's why...in the original post you commented that :

I can tell you if you discove the authors identity you will not find the answer where the problem is given so no trying to cheat.

There is only one way you can make such an assurance, and thats by knowing in advance that there is no known, definitive answer.

so all you "errors in the Bible" buffs have a go at this one and see if youcan solve it.

Would you care to clarify whether or not it can be solved?

If it can, would you care to explain how knowing who discovered the problem cannot lead to the solution?

ETA:

Its also unclear from your original psot if this is something that appears to be a problem, but can be solved and you want the "no there's no error in the bible" crew to tackle it, or if its something that is a problem, but you want the "yes there is an error" crew to find it from just the offered information.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that it doesn't matter. Its like someone said about the moon-hoax recently - if there is a single piece of evidence anywhere that can only be explained by us having gone to the moon, then it doesn't matter if every other single piece is a fake, we still had to go there. Similarly, if there is a single irreconcilable error in the bible, then no claim of perfection, literal truth, etc. can be supported.

I'm not sure why this particular problem is therefore of relevance to anyone.

Zombrex

^^^^^^^^^

Yeah, what he said

Dades

I did actually take a pen and bit of paper this morning to see what I could find. All I could find was a person missing.

My logical conclusion was that somebody was careless with their sums.

Am dying to hear the "official" conclusion though.

ISAW

robindch wrote:

> where are all these people who are constantly posting in their "expert"
> knowledge about errors in the Bible?

...
Which isn't to say that the bible should, or even can, be read free of any historical context, but rather that a consistent one should be used, and one which is informed in all areas by scholarship. ...
Alternatively, it could be that none of the critics' side are actually all that worried about who is said to have begat who

i disagree. Geneology is very important to jews. The Male and female side are listed for Jesus. After all it is the female (mother0 which makes aone a jew under Jewish Law isnt it.

As regards what I am asking i dont think it could be simpler

1. All seventy living souls of the house of Jacob, including all of his living male and female descendants, were in Egypt when he arrived there with those who accompanied him. (Gen. 46:6, 27).


Let H= Number in household. H= 70.

2. Sixty-six of Jacob's descendants came to Egypt with him. This count includes only Jacob's literal offspring; none of his sons' wives is included (Gen. 46:26).

Let T = travelled to Egypt. T = 66

3. Except for Joseph and his two sons, who already resided in Egypt (Gen. 46:27), Jacob took with him all of his son(s), his sons' son(s), his daughter(s), his sons' daughter(s) (Gen. 46:7), and all of his great-grandchildren ("little ones," Gen. 46:5).

Jos=3. T+Jos= 69. Who was the other one to make it up to 70? How can you explain it and NOT contradict what is written?

ISAW

The Atheist wrote:

I think there's an extra offspring listed than the 66 mentioned that supposedly came to Egypt with Jacob...

Muppim and Huppim weren't siamese twins by any chance?

But this is just saying "The Bible recorded it wrong!" I am asking you to assume the Bible recorded it correctly. How could it do so and there not be a contradiction? Who is missing?

ISAW

bonkey wrote:

"I can tell you if you discove the authors identity you will not find the answer where the problem is given so no trying to cheat."

There is only one way you can make such an assurance, and thats by knowing in advance that there is no known, definitive answer.

I wasnt going to grace that with an answer since looking at the texts requires reading between the lines.

But logically there is a number of ways I can make such an assurance. I will give you two and not any more for now and wont go any further into those two either.

1. I could be misleading you and the answer may be readily avaliable. So making you such an assurance would deter you from cheating.

2. I could have written the puzzle myself. So asking me for the answer even when I have it wouldn't make me give it to you.

Would you care to clarify whether or not it can be solved?

Can the Riemann hypothesis be solved? doesn't stop people trying does it?

Is there a solution to the missing person. There is.

If it can, would you care to explain how knowing who discovered the problem cannot lead to the solution?

No but I already have given you two possible answers to that. there may be more.

Its also unclear from your original psot if this is something that appears to be a problem, but can be solved and you want the "no there's no error in the bible" crew to tackle it, or if its something that is a problem, but you want the "yes there is an error" crew to find it from just the offered information.

Anyone cvan tackle it. There is of course the solution that "the bible is full of lies and this is just another one" or "The Bible actaully says 69 descendents and the author is lying". But I am stating that

1. Assume the Puzzle as presented is as stated in the Bible.
2. Asuume the bible is logically consistant for the purposes of this puzzle.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that it doesn't matter.

thank you for that. Your logically inconsistant opinion of indifference indifferent fits in snugly with the puzzle.

[snip]
if there is a single irreconcilable error in the bible, then no claim of perfection, literal truth, etc. can be supported.
[/quote]

fine. We can go through you list another day. Care to start with this one and show where it is wrong?

I'm not sure why this particular problem is therefore of relevance to anyone.

It is relevant to the fact that at least it is original here. It isnt a lazy cut and paste job from a "Bible full of inconsistencies and lies " or a "Moon landing was a hoax" site.

Scofflaw

And these are the names of the children of Israel, which came into Egypt, Jacob and his sons: Reuben, Jacob's firstborn.

9And the sons of Reuben; Hanoch, and Phallu, and Hezron, and Carmi. (5)

10And the sons of Simeon; Jemuel, and Jamin, and Ohad, and Jachin, and Zohar, and Shaul the son of a Canaanitish woman. (12)

11And the sons of Levi; Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. (16)

12And the sons of Judah; Er, and Onan, and Shelah, and Pharez, and Zarah: but Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan. And the sons of Pharez were Hezron and Hamul. (22)

13And the sons of Issachar; Tola, and Phuvah, and Job, and Shimron. (27)

14And the sons of Zebulun; Sered, and Elon, and Jahleel. (31)

15These be the sons of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob in Padanaram, with his daughter Dinah (32): all the souls of his sons and his daughters were thirty and three.

So, OK, one of Leah's descendants is missing. Traditional explanations:

1. the seventieth person was Jochebed (daughter of Levi, mother of Moses), who was born as the family passed over the border to Egypt

2. the seventieth person was Jacob himself

3. the seventieth person was the only wife mentioned - Asenath, Joseph's wife

4. the seventieth person is the unnamed son or daughter of Dinah (illegitimate, by her rape by the Prince of Shechem)

Solution 1 appears to be doubtful, because of dates. Solution 2 is an easy option, but he doesn't count as his own descendant - nor does it solve the question of Leah's 32/33 discrepancy.

Assuming it has to be someone mentioned in the list of names, then solution 4 won't work. The only person mentioned in the list and not already excluded from the count is Asenath, Joseph's wife. However, she can only count if she is a descendant of Jacob.

What if 3 and 4 are correct - that Joseph is married to Dinah's daughter, Asenath, here described as 'Asenath daughter of Potiphera, priest of On'? She's only his half-niece, after all, which is nothing in Biblical terms...also, the rest of them were commanded to marry within their lineage. Additionally, the land of Shechem later became part of the land of the Tribe of Joseph - by paternal inheritance?

To be honest, though, it still doesn't work as a logical puzzle while keeping the Bible inerrant, since saying 'Asenath daughter of Potiphera, priest of On' is clearly not a true description if she's actually 'Asenath, daughter of Dinah' - even if she was adopted, as is apparently claimed. Having said that, of course, 'inerrant' is not the same as 'honest' - although it's hard to see how the Bible could be 'inerrantly dishonest' - it means as little as 'specified complexity'...

And to come clean - the solution, which I couldn't be arsed working out for myself, comes from here, as it appears does the original puzzle. Actually, it looks like a straight 'cut and paste'...fortunately ISAW has me on 'ignore', so he won't see that.

Also, and more generally, so what?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

So it was Asenath, who is secretly the daughter of Dinah and is Joseph half-niece and his wife (cue Deliverence music)

Wow, that was fun :rolleyes:

Though as Scofflaw points out there is a strong argument that Asenath should not be included anyway, so you are back at square one. As a logic puzzle it is a bit silly because it untruthful to the reader (Asenath is described as the daughter of Potiphera, not Dinah so how are you supposed to know she is actually Dinah's child?).

bonkey

ISAW wrote:

Can the Riemann hypothesis be solved? doesn't stop people trying does it?

Is there a solution to the missing person. There is.

The Riemann Hypothesis hasn't been solved, but is not known to be unsolveable.

By stating there is an answer for your problem, you are not asking people to tackle a problem that may be solveable but which has no known solution, but rather are asking people to try and replicate a known solution.

So your question is merely a logic challenge, nothing more. I don't really see the relevance to the forum, other than that its a logic challenge based on a christian text. If that's what it is, then fine...but then I'd wonder why all the digs at "errors in the bible buffs" and so on.

It is relevant to the fact that at least it is original here. It isnt a lazy cut and paste job from a "Bible full of inconsistencies and lies " or a "Moon landing was a hoax" site.

Unless you are John Pratt in disguise, then your challenge is no more original than the "cut and paste" jobs from other locations, because thats exactly what it is - someone else's puzzle presented here.

ISAW

bonkey wrote:

The Riemann Hypothesis hasn't been solved, but is not known to be unsolveable.

Exactly!

By stating there is an answer for your problem, you are not asking people to tackle a problem that may be solveable but which has no known solution, but rather are asking people to try and replicate a known solution.

Not logically true. I could be asking both couldnt I? some people might believe there is a solution but others might claim that that isnt a proper solution.

So your question is merely a logic challenge, nothing more.

Duh. Ever wonder why i called it a Bible logic puzzle?

I don't really see the relevance to the forum,

No you dont do you? something we agree on I note.

other than that its a logic challenge based on a christian text. If that's what it is, then fine...but then I'd wonder why all the digs at "errors in the bible buffs" and so on.

You I also note that you do wonder that as well.

you see ythe point iof the forum is to discuss Christianity and not to bash the bible as a "book full of lies and errors".

There is more to Christianity than the Bible. But some people here seem to only want to list out apparent logical errors in scripture. yet when asked to actually go and lok into a possible logical error for themselves and not cut and paste a list from elsewhere most of them dont even go to search if any of the claims about the puzzle was just cut and pasted. Most dont even bother to read the text and work out anything.

Half the replies to this thread are mine. There are about six other replies. If i started a thread called "logical errors in the bible" there might be hundreds of replies mostly from boible detractors. Certainly i think there would be dozens.

It makes me think whether people who post such stuff are interestede in reading the Bible to find out things or in just simply criticising it by reference to other critics and little or no original personal study or thought.

therefore those people to me dont seem like genuine skeptics. They seem to be locked into a mindset of critique of religion and faith in skepticism. Which is fine if they come to it with an open mind. Does it make anyone else think that?

So i beg to differ about the relevance of all this.

Unless you are John Pratt in disguise, then your challenge is no more original than the "cut and paste" jobs from other locations, because thats exactly what it is - someone else's puzzle presented here.

I bet you didn't find that out on your own either did you?

Zombrex

ISAW wrote:

yet when asked to actually go and lok into a possible logical error for themselves and not cut and paste a list from elsewhere most of them dont even go to search if any of the claims about the puzzle was just cut and pasted. Most dont even bother to read the text and work out anything.

I think the point you are not getting is why would they, since it was very clear from your original post that there was actually a solution to this "puzzle" and that you would eventually present it, possibly followed by the phrase "ha ha".

I mean how dumb do you actually think the skeptics around here are (rethorical question ).

Did you actually expect people to rush off and go
"you know what ISAW, you are right, that is a really good example of an error in the Bible"
only to have you go
"Ha! Fooled you guys! It isn't actually an error in the Bible at all, it is in fact a very clever puzzle designed to hide the identity of a certain person. Don't you guys look hella stupid now"
Were we supposed to go
"Wow, you have made us look really dumb ISAW. Maybe next time we will consider more carefully before we state the the Bible is wrong about Pi, and the way the sun moves"

Seriously this is like the episode of South Park with Cartman out to trick Kyle even though Kyle knows exactly what he is doing from the very start.

BrianCalgary

ISAW wrote:

There is more to Christianity than the Bible. But some people here seem to only want to list out apparent logical errors in scripture. yet when asked to actually go and lok into a possible logical error for themselves and not cut and paste a list from elsewhere most of them dont even go to search if any of the claims about the puzzle was just cut and pasted. Most dont even bother to read the text and work out anything. ?

I read the text and re read it and have figured that there is really no point in trying to figure it out.

I really am not too big on details. I tend to look at the result and the bigger picture. The big picture is a recounting of how the Israelites came to be in Egypt.

This is an historical passage and within such passages the numbers sometimes just don't quite work.

bonkey

ISAW wrote:

you see ythe point iof the forum is to discuss Christianity and not to bash the bible as a "book full of lies and errors".

Right. So why did you start a thread who's purpose is ostensiobly to bash those who bash the bible?

I mean...you cut-and-paste a puzzle, but take a dig at those who cut-and-paste things.

You admit there's a solution but complain that people who criticise irreconcilable errors don't want to look for it.

There is more to Christianity than the Bible.

And this thread is relevant to that, how? By referencing the bible to attack those who question it?

But some people here seem to only want to list out apparent logical errors in scripture.

No. Some people seem to want to know how a book which has undeniable logical and factual errors can be claimed to be literal truth.

If we all accepted that the bible is an imperfect work, then the "errors in the bible" line of reasoning would cease to have any relevance.

However, we don't all accept that. So those who support its alleged perfection should be challenged to explain how they reconcile their claim of truth with the errors.

In retaliation, you've offered something which isn't an error and tried to construe the lack of interest in it as as something significant. But its not significant. No-one has ever suggested that every word in teh bible is false. They have merely suggested that no book with a single error can be said to be without fault.

One should also notice that the "the bible is correct" crowd have shown pretty mcuh the same amount of interest in recreating the solution as the "the bible contains errors" crowd.....but strangely enough this isn't seen as a failing on their part.

yet when asked to actually go and lok into a possible logical error for themselves

As I already pointed out, your initial post suggested either there was a known solution, or it was known to be unsolveable. You've since clarified that the former is the case. where's the challenge?

and not cut and paste a list from elsewhere

So you are John Pratt, and didn't copy-and-paste this from elsewhere.

You have to be, otherwise, this entire tirade of yours can be rephrased as :

Look - here's a problem I cut-and-pasted to show how stupid and uninformed people who cut-and-paste things to make their arguments for them are.

Most dont even bother to read the text and work out anything.

And those who do? Are their criticisms also invalid?

And if I were to know someone who has done this, what is wrong with me taking the fruits of their labour? Indeed, If I only knew of them....is it any different?

After all, whether or not you are John Pratt, I'm willing to bet that you didn't translate the bible from ancient Hewbrew yourself, nor have you decided how it should be interpreted, but are rather taking the fruits of other's labours and incorporating them into your own belief-structure.

Or is it only wrong to not reinvent the wheel when its something you agree with?

Half the replies to this thread are mine. There are about six other replies. If i started a thread called "logical errors in the bible" there might be hundreds of replies mostly from boible detractors. Certainly i think there would be dozens.

There is a contention to be resolved between demonstrable falsities and any claim that the book in its entirety is some form of divinely inspired truth.

There is no contention between such a claim and showing that parts of the book aren't logically inconsistent.

So is it any wonder that people might be interested in discussing the first of these themes, but not the second? To me it seems pretty obvious.

They seem to be locked into a mindset of critique of religion and faith in skepticism.

Because they've found an irreconcileable problem. They don't need to go further. either the errors they've found can be explained, or the claims that the bible is complete truth are false. There is no middle ground. You don't need to find more errors. You don't need to find that all the rest of the stuff is true.

You've partaken in enough discussions on the scientific fora that I know you have to understand the basic principle of falsifiability. One irreconcileable difference is all it takes to discard a claim. You don't need more. You don't need to hunt for every irreconcileable difference.

Which is fine if they come to it with an open mind.

My guess si that they had an open mind until someone pointed out that there are undeniable errors in a work claimed to be complete truth. At that point, the only open-mindedness one can have is the willingness to listen to someone explain why this isn't so. But does that happen? No, it doesn't. Instead, we see people like yourself get all huffy that people dare to challenge the bible as though doing so was wrong.

Tell me - do you have as much scorn for believers who don't put as much deep study into the bible as you do for the critics you've targetted in this thread? After all, aren't they even more foolish to believe someone telling them anything about their religion or the bible without delving deep into its mysteries? Shouldn't you be even more critical of hte Chrstians in this forum for not taking up your challenge as the critics? Aren't they just as gullible, if not moreso, for accepting teh truth of the bible without this deep level of study???

I bet you didn't find that out on your own either did you?

No. I didn't. Unlike your claim that knowing who wrote it won't lead to a solution, Mr. Pratt, I won't dissemble.

gosimeon

ISAW wrote:

Wow! where are all these people who are constantly posting in their "expert" knowledge about errors in the Bible? Ten days and NONE of them have posted! amazing! I thought they were really interested in the subject.

Do you believe that the Bible is error-free?

ISAW

bonkey wrote:

Right. So why did you start a thread who's purpose is ostensiobly to bash those who bash the bible?

i didnt! i started asking for the people who come here claiming to be really interested in discussing puzzling things about the Bible. But I point out when it seems people have to go and actually work something out for themselves and not cut and paste a "criticism" or "logical error" then they seem to be sparse on the ground.

I mean...you cut-and-paste a puzzle, but take a dig at those who cut-and-paste things.

No I didn't! I criticised them for cutting and pasting and not doing any original work while claiming and appearing as people who are really interested in the actual study of the text.

You admit there's a solution but complain that people who criticise irreconcilable errors don't want to look for it.

I admit that someone has posted a solution somewhere and that there is also classical "solutions" which people disagree about.

And this thread is relevant to that, how? By referencing the bible to attack those who question it?

It is interesting as a puzzle in titself. Indeed much work has been done to remove any problems of differeing text by using plain english. But I just found it interesting that the cohort of "errors in the bible" people who seem to be interested in looking into logical argument and reason don't actually seem to be interested in that logical reasoning and discussion at all when it comes to a puzzle that seems to require actually studying it and not cut and pasting it from someone who has an opinion (as a detractor) which they hold in common.

No. Some people seem to want to know how a book which has undeniable logical and factual errors can be claimed to be literal truth.

Most christians are not fundamentalist in this way when it comes to the Bible.

If we all accepted that the bible is an imperfect work, then the "errors in the bible" line of reasoning would cease to have any relevance.

It doesnt have it for me. Im not a fundamentalist. In fact I have frequently debated creationists on the issue. the point that surprised me though is that like Muslims who posted here about being "open minded" with respect to the Bible but really had a biased view, there are it seems also Bible detractors who have a similar personal view but present themselves as "open minded" on the question of the bible.

However, we don't all accept that. So those who support its alleged perfection should be challenged to explain how they reconcile their claim of truth with the errors.

i have no problem with that. I just found it strange that... I won't rehearse it

In retaliation, you've offered something which isn't an error and tried to construe the lack of interest in it as as something significant.

I don't know if it is an error or not but on the latter true. It is significant to me since there IS a lack of interest.

But its not significant. No-one has ever suggested that every word in teh bible is false. They have merely suggested that no book with a single error can be said to be without fault.

But Im not commenting on standards of loogical debate or fallacy on this I am rather questioning personal bias and concealment of it. It seems disingenuous.

One should also notice that the "the bible is correct" crowd have shown pretty mcuh the same amount of interest in recreating the solution as the "the bible contains errors" crowd.....but strangely enough this isn't seen as a failing on their part.

Sadly I would that were true but cant really say since they are not really a representative sample because there are so few of them! fundamentalists among christians are a small minority as I have pointed out. But to be honest I found this particular puzzle intregueing. If there were twenty of so fundamentalists on this group I would agree with you if at least fifteen didnt have a go at the puzzle.

But back to my observation... the point being whether fundamentalist or detractor people present themselves as interested in actual study of the implications of the text. It surprises me when they show no interest in such a puzzle then.

As I already pointed out, your initial post suggested either there was a known solution, or it was known to be unsolveable. You've since clarified that the former is the case. where's the challenge?

I may not be sure if the known solution is in fact correct! The classically given Jewish solution isnt correct as far as I see it.

So you are John Pratt, and didn't copy-and-paste this from elsewhere.

Wrong astronomer!

Look - here's a problem I cut-and-pasted to show how stupid and uninformed people who cut-and-paste things to make their arguments for them are.

I wanted people to actually do the work themselves and didnt want them to think there was a solution anywhere on the net. the John Pratt solution is not so easy to come by and it isnt necessarily a "correct" or "orthodox" solution.

And those who do? Are their criticisms also invalid?

they may or may not be valid but they are certainly not THEIR criticisms are they?

And if I were to know someone who has done this, what is wrong with me taking the fruits of their labour? Indeed, If I only knew of them....is it any different?

Actually if and when the John Pratt solution was posted I intended crediting the author. That is one element of what is wrong about it.

After all, whether or not you are John Pratt, I'm willing to bet that you didn't translate the bible from ancient Hewbrew yourself, nor have you decided how it should be interpreted, but are rather taking the fruits of other's labours and incorporating them into your own belief-structure.

the "puzzle" is presented in plain English as above to avoid these "interpretation" arguments. It is also stipluated that you need not refer to the actual text nor to any other part of the Bible.
to argue that "nothing is original" is a wholly seperate argument to either

taking someones work and presenting it as your own i.e. plagerism
or
detraction from other peoples geuine beliefs in the guise of pretending one is interested in studying a field that those people are studying.

Or is it only wrong to not reinvent the wheel when its something you agree with?

I dont have a problem with that. Indeed many of the creationist arguments have been dealt with capably in talk.origins. I have a problem with people who pretend to be interested and pass themselves off as that but have already make up thier minds and only wish to post that while maintaining they are interested in or believe the other side of the debate.

There is a contention to be resolved between demonstrable falsities and any claim that the book in its entirety is some form of divinely inspired truth.

There is no contention between such a claim and showing that parts of the book aren't logically inconsistent.

So is it any wonder that people might be interested in discussing the first of these themes, but not the second? To me it seems pretty obvious.

Ah but the "puzzle" on the surface was presented as a logical inconsistency, the latter of your catogories.

Because they've found an irreconcileable problem. They don't need to go further. either the errors they've found can be explained, or the claims that the bible is complete truth are false. There is no middle ground. You don't need to find more errors. You don't need to find that all the rest of the stuff is true.

In my opinion in many cases they havent found or studied anything! they harbour a belief that the Bible must be lies/fairy stories/myth/conspiracy and they do a web search on that and then just cut and paste what they find.

To take your logical method when I find one of these type of poster who post say 500 "errors", I go down the list explaining the first five or so and explain how these are not necessarily "errors" and then suggest that since their list isnt actually what they claim they should go through each one again and post the ones they are sure are errors. they usually dont.

You've partaken in enough discussions on the scientific fora that I know you have to understand the basic principle of falsifiability. One irreconcileable difference is all it takes to discard a claim. You don't need more. You don't need to hunt for every irreconcileable difference.

I agree. Indeed I olny need show that ONE of a list of 500 claimed error isnt an error to dismiss the list!

My guess si that they had an open mind until someone pointed out that there are undeniable errors in a work claimed to be complete truth.

You may be right. My guess is they had a biased mind and went looking for evidence which supported their position. Just as creationists do!

At that point, the only open-mindedness one can have is the willingness to listen to someone explain why this isn't so. But does that happen? No, it doesn't. Instead, we see people like yourself get all huffy that people dare to challenge the bible as though doing so was wrong.

where did i get all huffy about that? where did I calim it was wrong?

Tell me - do you have as much scorn for believers who don't put as much deep study into the bible as you do for the critics you've targetted in this thread?

If they set themselves up as people actually interested in the field - well yes!

Shouldn't you be even more critical of hte Chrstians in this forum for not taking up your challenge as the critics? Aren't they just as gullible, if not moreso, for accepting teh truth of the bible without this deep level of study

I would be critical of them if they existed! but as I stated there are not so many fundamentalists here are there?

No. I didn't. Unlike your claim that knowing who wrote it won't lead to a solution, Mr. Pratt, I won't dissemble.

I explained why I didnt post whether their was a solution readily avalable on the net and the implications of whether this was a "solution" or not.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote:

i didnt! i started asking for the people who come here claiming to be really interested in discussing puzzling things about the Bible.

I'm not sure anyone has ever posted here that they are "really interested" in discussing puzzles in the Bible.

A lot of people, including myself, have posted quite a few times that the Bible is full of errors, and therefore cannot be considered to be a perfect historical record, or even the infallible word of God. We have not done this because we are Bible bookworms, fascinated by discussing the work itself. It has nearly always been done in response to the Christian fundamentalist line, often posted, here that the Bible is a perfect historical record and the infallible word of God.

You claim those who point out errors in the Bible, if they were really "unbiased" (unbiased towards what exactly?) should have been interested in "discussing" this apparent error in the Bible with you. Why exactly would they wish to do that. You made it quite clear from your original post that it wasn't going to turn out to be an error at all. Why would anyone want to discuss this as an error if you already know, and have made it clear, that it isn't one? What did you hope to gain from that discussion?

So I'm not quite sure what your underlying point is in all this?

Are you trying to say that there are in fact plausible solutions to the errors, scientific and historical, found in the Bible text and that people should spend more time searching for solutions rather than just throwing their hands up and stating that it is an error in the Bible. Do you maintain that the Bible does not contain any errors?

If that is the case why not just say that.

I would point out that just because there is an apparent "solution" to this apparent error has little baring on any of the other numerous errors in the Bible.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote:

I'm not sure anyone has ever posted here that they are "really interested" in discussing puzzles in the Bible.

I said "puzzling things" i.e. what they see as errors.

A lot of people, including myself, have posted quite a few times that the Bible is full of errors, and therefore cannot be considered to be a perfect historical record, or even the infallible word of God.

But one may be a Christian and do this! Why does it seem most of those who do it are not! Why dont you leave Christians to deal with fundamentalists?

We have not done this because we are Bible bookworms, fascinated by discussing the work itself. It has nearly always been done in response to the Christian fundamentalist line, often posted, here that the Bible is a perfect historical record and the infallible word of God.

Again why not leave the vast majority of Christians the non fundamentalist ones do that? Do they really need your help? and you do realise that to maintain a skeptical point of view you have to argue on the basis of their position which means actuallky studying their work and exposing any errors. as one might with Scientologists with any religion or with space aliens or man didnt land on the Moon groups.

If you believe in logical argument and exposing fallacy that is what one does. cutting and pasting other peoples criticisms is a very lazy way to do this. Adding commentary which suggests comprehension and using such citations to expand or outline an argument is a scholarly way to do it.

Why is it so important to you that non Christians point out where fundamentalist Christians err?
And don't you accept that people do come here with a so called "open mind" but really don't accept Christianity at all?

You claim those who point out errors in the Bible, if they were really "unbiased" (unbiased towards what exactly?) should have been interested in "discussing" this apparent error in the Bible with you.

No I don't! They can discuss it with anyone. But I dont even claim that. I am surprised that those who seem to be interested in the logical debate and discussion dont go into a debate when that debate is not necessarily about dissing the Bible but about logical implications of passages in the Bible.

Why are some people interested in only those implications which can be suggested as "errors" and not in others which may or may not be errors but which requires actually studying the material?

Why exactly would they wish to do that. You made it quite clear from your original post that it wasn't going to turn out to be an error at all.

It might or might not be an error i dont know.Thats the point of exploring it!

Why would anyone want to discuss this as an error if you already know, and have made it clear, that it isn't one? What did you hope to gain from that discussion?

I dont know if it is an error or not. I know there are "solutions". theologists and others might well argue of the validity of these solutions.

So I'm not quite sure what your underlying point is in all this?

Who is the missing person? That's the point. Who is interested? Thats the underlying one.

Are you trying to say that there are in fact plausible solutions to the errors, scientific and historical, found in the Bible text and that people should spend more time searching for solutions rather than just throwing their hands up and stating that it is an error in the Bible.

Im not trying to say that but YES. for many so called "errors" other explainations can be found. for example many claim the Bible says homosexuality is evil because of accounts of Soddom. But in fact one can claim that the sin referred to in Soddom was one of refusing hospitality and not homosexuality.

Do you maintain that the Bible does not contain any errors?

Well one can interpret many of the so called errors. But I dont believe it is literally true. I mean I dont believe the Earth was created 4004 BC but nor do I think this is a contradistion of the Creation narritive.

I would point out that just because there is an apparent "solution" to this apparent error has little baring on any of the other numerous errors in the Bible.

If you can support this then why dont you list ten "errors". Please try to confine yourself to the New testament. Start a new thread called "Ten Bible errors".

Son Goku

ISAW wrote:

If you can support this then why dont you list ten "errors". Please try to confine yourself to the New testament. Start a new thread called "Ten Bible errors".

To be fair the New Testament and Jesus' sayings aren't that ridiculous. It's the Old Testament that most skeptics would have a problem with, due to a lot of random nonsensical content to be found within it.

Scofflaw

Son Goku wrote:

To be fair the New Testament and Jesus' sayings aren't that ridiculous. It's the Old Testament that most skeptics would have a problem with, due to a lot of random nonsensical content to be found within it.

Hmm. Have you tried reconciling the different accounts of Jesus' birth (Magi:no Magi, Herod:no Herod, angel announces to Mary: angel announces to Joseph, virgin birth:no virgin birth, 28 generations David to Jesus: 41 generations from Davbid to Jesus, Joseph's father called Jacob:Joseph's father called Heli, different dates, census:no census), let alone the accounts of the resurrection?

Again, perfectly consistent with men writing after the event, perfectly inconsistent with inerrant revelation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

> To be fair the New Testament and Jesus' sayings aren't that ridiculous.

Well, in comparison to the OT, perhaps they are. But Jesus was still able to act the plonker when he wanted to -- viz, that time when he killed a fig tree for having no figs, or when he said that he wasn't on earth to bring peace, but a sword and other suspicious comments. Paul's letters are misogynistic and homophobic and the book of revelation reads, frankly, like the author was on acid when he wrote it. As Scoffie says, it's all perfectly consistent with the work of first-century scribes describing first-century laws and customs, rather than the work of an omniscient, omnibenevolent, creator of the universe.

ISAW

Son Goku wrote:

To be fair the New Testament and Jesus' sayings aren't that ridiculous. It's the Old Testament that most skeptics would have a problem with, due to a lot of random nonsensical content to be found within it.

Please bring it to another thread. Please try to stick with Christ or related referenes if possible (from Old or New Testament), I dont want to discuss Judiasm and please provide actual references to places where you see a contradiction and not just a different account or a different emphasis.

Finally please not in theis thread. This is for discussinf a particular puzzle.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote:

I said "puzzling things" i.e. what they see as errors.

They aren't exactly "puzzling" .. they are just wrong.

Which if one accepts the Bible can be wrong in the first place then that isn't that big a deal. It is only "puzzling" if one thinks the Bible cannot be wrong and therefore there must be an reason something appears wrong (other than the obvious).

ISAW wrote:

But one may be a Christian and do this!

Preaching to the choir here ISAW. Other Christians on this forum will probably strgonly disagree with your statement.

ISAW wrote:

Why dont you leave Christians to deal with fundamentalists?

Why would I. They aren't doing a particularly good job, are they?

ISAW wrote:

Do they really need your help?

Yes, apparently they do. Judging by the sharp rise of nonsense backed by religious dogma in the last 15 years, in Europe and around the world, they seem to need all the help they can get.

ISAW wrote:

If you believe in logical argument and exposing fallacy that is what one does. cutting and pasting other peoples criticisms is a very lazy way to do this.

Well it depends on the argument.

If someone else sums up an illogical aspect or paradox of religoin much better than the average poster here can I see no problem quoting that.

Personally I tend not to quote word for word other arguments on this board, normally because I find that the language from academics and intellicuals often has to be "dumbed down" a bit before anyone can understand the point they are trying to make. So I try and rephrase or reshape the argument in lanaguage that is easier to grasp, often with examples that draw on analogies that are easier to understand.

ISAW wrote:

Why is it so important to you that non Christians point out where fundamentalist Christians err?

Because non-fundamentalist Christians either cannot or seem largely unwilling to.

ISAW wrote:

And don't you accept that people do come here with a so called "open mind" but really don't accept Christianity at all?

I'm not sure. Who here, on either side, claims to have an "open mind"

If you mean people come here claiming that they are willing to listen to opposing arguments and then just dismiss them often had without considering them properly, or recongising any of the points being made, then yes I'm sure that happens. It happens on all Boards.ie forums.

The problem though is that phrase is often used by people to attack others who don't agree with them, as if having a closed mind is some how a horrific thing to do.

If someone presents an argument such as "The Bible gets pi completely wrong" and the only rebutall given is that God was only giving a rough explination of pi, it doesn't matter that he was off a bit, then that isn't a good rebuttal. But often the claim of "you have a closed mind" is thrown at those who would not accept that rebuttal. I can only imagine this is because to the person making the rebuttal (who probably doesn't understand why it matters a great deal if pi is 3 or 3.14159...) that rebuttal makes perfect sense, so they assume the other person has rejected it without consideration.

ISAW wrote:

Why are some people interested in only those implications which can be suggested as "errors" and not in others which may or may not be errors but which requires actually studying the material?

Because some people don't care if 60 people went to Egypt or 59 people went to Egypt. It makes very little odds to the story. Especially when you clearly hinted in your original post that there was a answer to this puzzle.

A lot of people care if the Christian fundamentalists claim that their Holy Book is the infalible word of God, and they care about the knock on reprecusions of that claim.

ISAW wrote:

It might or might not be an error i dont know.Thats the point of exploring it!

Why did you want to explore it? And why did you attempt to bait all the "error in the bible buffs" with these comments :-

Several prople have been posting on this site about "contradictions" in the Bible.
...
so all you "errors in the Bible" buffs have a go at this one and see if youcan solve it.


What exactly was the purpose of your post?

ISAW wrote:

Who is the missing person? That's the point. Who is interested? Thats the underlying one.

Neither the Christians, nor the "errors in the Bible buffs" seem to care. You seem to view this as some kind of hypocracy. I'm not sure why. Why should they care?

ISAW wrote:

for example many claim the Bible says homosexuality is evil because of accounts of Soddom. But in fact one can claim that the sin referred to in Soddom was one of refusing hospitality and not homosexuality.

That is true. But that doesn't explain away the numerous other times homosexuality is declared an affront to god and a hidieous sin (not sure it is declared "evil" anywhere)

ISAW wrote:

Well one can interpret many of the so called errors.

Well that goes back to your comments about being open/closed minded. Pretty much anything that appears to be incorrect, or contradicary, in the Bible can be interpreted a certain way so that it can be explained away so long as people are prepared to assert a particular meaning to a passage. Watch the Life of Brian to see this satirised

If one is closed minded to the idea that the Bible could just be wrong, it is still relatively easy to find an interpretation that explains away any problems found in the Bible.

Of course with this in mind one has to wonder is there much point pointing out errors found in the Bible to people who believe at a fundamental level that the Bible cannot contain errors.

ISAW wrote:

But I dont believe it is literally true.

Well that isn't quite the same thing. Do you believe the Bible can contain errors or mistakes, such as mathematical errors, errors about the world and the physics of the universe, errors about historial events?

ISAW wrote:

If you can support this then why dont you list ten "errors". Please try to confine yourself to the New testament.

Why would I possibly want to confine my list to the New Testament? There is very little description of mathematics or physics in the New Testament. I suppose as Scofflaw points out the 4 different versions of Jesus life are riddled with contradictions (we already had a thread on that one).

You are kinda missing the point though ISAW. There only has to be one mistake anywhere in the Bible for the Bible not to be completely error free, as may Jews and Christian claim it is. I don't really care what mistakes are in the Bible. I care that people wish to hold the Bible up to be infallible, and then want to organise things in society around that concept.

BTW by asking me to restrict myself to the NT are you saying that you agree that the Old Testament is not error/mistake free?

Son Goku

Scofflaw wrote:

Hmm. Have you tried reconciling the different accounts of Jesus' birth (Magi:no Magi, Herod:no Herod, angel announces to Mary: angel announces to Joseph, virgin birth:no virgin birth, 28 generations David to Jesus: 41 generations from Davbid to Jesus, Joseph's father called Jacob:Joseph's father called Heli, different dates, census:no census), let alone the accounts of the resurrection?

Again, perfectly consistent with men writing after the event, perfectly inconsistent with inerrant revelation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well perhaps I should have said relatively less random.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote:

I'm not sure anyone has ever posted here that they are "really interested" in discussing puzzles in the Bible.

Im not sure either. That makes two of us. So do you accept then that people have posted here claiming to be interested in discussing the Bible but really believing it is not just in error but either a pack of lies or not Inspired at all.

Do you not recall the spate of postings from people before christmas who began by opening a discussion and later startyed posting quotes from the Koran? And after they were answered they started posting the same questions again. Basic questions about ancient heresies such as the Trinity doctrine.

A lot of people, including myself,...We have not done this because ...

You speak for the group now do you?

It has nearly always been done in response to the Christian fundamentalist line, often posted, here that the Bible is a perfect historical record and the infallible word of God.

But this group isnt just about that! It is about Christianity and not just about Biblical fundamentalism. And you are a cogient poster in spite of whatever you may believe. I am not directing anything against you.

By the way can you support your suggestion that "bible full of errors" lines of argument are almost always because of a fundamentalist posting about "infallinle truth". I am sure three or four counter example would blow that line out of the water don't you agree? Im fairly confident I can find such counter examples.

You claim those who point out errors in the Bible, if they were really "unbiased" (unbiased towards what exactly?)

Approaching the subject with an open mind and not already harbouring the belief that God had nothing to do with the Bible or even that God does not exist in which case he also couldnt have anything to do with the Bible!

If one starts from the belief that God doesn't exist then how can one ever suggest that they are approaching the issue with an open mind on the issue?

should have been interested in "discussing" this apparent error in the Bible with you. Why exactly would they wish to do that

Not necessarily with ME. but duh! Maybe because the title of the discussion is "Bible Logic Puzzle"?

You made it quite clear from your original post that it wasn't going to turn out to be an error at all. Why would anyone want to discuss this as an error if you already know, and have made it clear, that it isn't one? What did you hope to gain from that discussion?

And I later made it clear that I don't know if there is a "solution" as such. I only stated what I did to stop people going for a cut and paste answer off the shelf and actually doing some work and thinking for themselves.

I didnt hope to gain at all. I hoped to attract the type of people who might be interested in such a puzzle. I'm interested in it. I really haven't resolved it myself. i thought maybe the puzzle might attract a feminisnt and that rape and not mentioning some woman might relate to it. Was one of the family raped on the way to Egypt?


Later I was point to exposing the the of people I mentioned i.e. those who seem to be intersted in the logical and rational study of the Bible and then when presented with a logical problem to solve are suddenly NOT interested in this type of puzzle. Instead they are only interested in parts which to them are fundamental proof of errors in the Bible. Not interested in truth or about hidden truth but about errors.

Are you trying to say that there are in fact plausible solutions to the errors, scientific and historical, found in the Bible text and that people should spend more time searching for solutions rather than just throwing their hands up and stating that it is an error in the Bible. Do you maintain that the Bible does not contain any errors?

I dont know? what are errors? THe Bible seems to say the Earth was created in seven days about 6000 years ago. But does that mean it is an "error"? If you want my personal belief I dont believe God created the Earth/Universe 6000 or so years ago in seven days but this does not necessarily mean God didn't have a hand in creation and the creation narritive is an error.

I would point out that just because there is an apparent "solution" to this apparent error has little baring on any of the other numerous errors in the Bible.

But if you are interested in rational study of biblical tracts why dont you look into this one? Why do you gravitate towards pointing out only those you consider to be "errors"? Please stick to the topic and if you wish to post about other parts of the Bible do it in another thread. This is about a logic

ISAW

Wicknight wrote:

I'm not sure anyone has ever posted here that they are "really interested" in discussing puzzles in the Bible.

Im not sure either. That makes two of us. So do you accept then that people have posted here claiming to be interested in discussing the Bible but really believing it is not just in error but either a pack of lies or not Inspired at all.

Do you not recall the spate of postings from people before christmas who began by opening a discussion and later startyed posting quotes from the Koran? And after they were answered they started posting the same questions again. Basic questions about ancient heresies such as the Trinity doctrine.

A lot of people, including myself,...We have not done this because ...

You speak for the group now do you?

It has nearly always been done in response to the Christian fundamentalist line, often posted, here that the Bible is a perfect historical record and the infallible word of God.

But this group isnt just about that! It is about Christianity and not just about Biblical fundamentalism. And you are a cogient poster in spite of whatever you may believe. I am not directing anything against you.

By the way can you support your suggestion that "bible full of errors" lines of argument are almost always because of a fundamentalist posting about "infallinle truth". I am sure three or four counter example would blow that line out of the water don't you agree? Im fairly confident I can find such counter examples.

You claim those who point out errors in the Bible, if they were really "unbiased" (unbiased towards what exactly?)

Approaching the subject with an open mind and not already harbouring the belief that God had nothing to do with the Bible or even that God does not exist in which case he also couldnt have anything to do with the Bible!

If one starts from the belief that God doesn't exist then how can one ever suggest that they are approaching the issue with an open mind on the issue?

should have been interested in "discussing" this apparent error in the Bible with you. Why exactly would they wish to do that

Not necessarily with ME. but duh! Maybe because the title of the discussion is "Bible Logic Puzzle"?

You made it quite clear from your original post that it wasn't going to turn out to be an error at all. Why would anyone want to discuss this as an error if you already know, and have made it clear, that it isn't one? What did you hope to gain from that discussion?

And I later made it clear that I don't know if there is a "solution" as such. I only stated what I did to stop people going for a cut and paste answer off the shelf and actually doing some work and thinking for themselves.

I didnt hope to gain at all. I hoped to attract the type of people who might be interested in such a puzzle. I'm interested in it. I really haven't resolved it myself. i thought maybe the puzzle might attract a feminisnt and that rape and not mentioning some woman might relate to it. Was one of the family raped on the way to Egypt?


Later I was point to exposing the the of people I mentioned i.e. those who seem to be intersted in the logical and rational study of the Bible and then when presented with a logical problem to solve are suddenly NOT interested in this type of puzzle. Instead they are only interested in parts which to them are fundamental proof of errors in the Bible. Not interested in truth or about hidden truth but about errors.

Are you trying to say that there are in fact plausible solutions to the errors, scientific and historical, found in the Bible text and that people should spend more time searching for solutions rather than just throwing their hands up and stating that it is an error in the Bible. Do you maintain that the Bible does not contain any errors?

I dont know? what are errors? THe Bible seems to say the Earth was created in seven days about 6000 years ago. But does that mean it is an "error"? If you want my personal belief I dont believe God created the Earth/Universe 6000 or so years ago in seven days but this does not necessarily mean God didn't have a hand in creation and the creation narritive is an error.

I would point out that just because there is an apparent "solution" to this apparent error has little baring on any of the other numerous errors in the Bible.

But if you are interested in rational study of biblical tracts why dont you look into this one? Why do you gravitate towards pointing out only those you consider to be "errors"? Please stick to the topic and if you wish to post about other parts of the Bible do it in another thread. This is about a logic

Zombrex

ISAW wrote:

So do you accept then that people have posted here claiming to be interested in discussing the Bible but really believing it is not just in error but either a pack of lies or not Inspired at all.

No. I think most people are quite up front that they believe it is full or errors, or that it is full of lies (lies are harder to prove of course, since one has to show that the person writting the thing deliberately meant to mislead), or that it is not inspired at all.

Not always mind. Some of those banned Muslims (I assume they were Muslim) were very non-comital about what they believed. But most of the regular posters here, such as myself, Scofflaw, bonkey, Robinch etc don't (I hope) come here under fall pretences.

ISAW wrote:

You speak for the group now do you?

Yes ... we have meetings on Fridays entitled "How to screw with Christians" ...:p

ISAW wrote:

It is about Christianity and not just about Biblical fundamentalism.

Fair enough.

And you are right I can't speak for anyone but myself. But I see fundamentalist ideas proping up on this forum all the time. To say that fundamentalism is not what this forum is about is all well and good, but that doesn't mean that fundamentalist view points are not commonly expressed here.

ISAW wrote:

Approaching the subject with an open mind and not already harbouring the belief that God had nothing to do with the Bible or even that God does not exist in which case he also couldnt have anything to do with the Bible!

How many people here come to this forum with a completely open mind? How many Christians here have an open mind that it might all just be nonsense?

Of course there is nothing wrong with that. If everyone had an open mind about something no one would ever post opinions on internet bulletin boards.

ISAW wrote:

And I later made it clear that I don't know if there is a "solution" as such.

You didn't "make that clear" ISAW. You stated it in a wholely unconvincing manner. You had a solution, a solution you clearly put weight in. Otherwise you would not have started the thread. While a lot of people here enjoy pointing out possible errors in the Bible you are not one of them, and you have in the past stated that you dislike this practice. It was therefore obvious that this was not what you were doing.

ISAW wrote:

The Bible seems to say the Earth was created in seven days about 6000 years ago. But does that mean it is an "error"?

Depends on if you take that passage literally. If you do then that is an error.

The Bible also describes a circle as having a circumference 3 times its diameter. If one takes that passage literally that is an error. The Bible also describes the sun stopping it arch. If one takes that passage literally that is an error. The Bible The Bible describes hares as chewing the cud. If one takes that passage literally that is an error.

Etc etc...

If one doesn't take these passages as literal, or accepts that they were the work of men of the time and as such could get things wrong, then there is no problem. And I've no problem with that. Most if not all of my Christian friends do this. They don't think the Bible is the infalliable word of God, they thing the Bible is a book about a religion, the same religion they follow today. If they wrote down what they believed they might make mistakes, but that doesn't mean what they believe is wrong.

ISAW wrote:

But if you are interested in rational study of biblical tracts why dont you look into this one?

Because it appears impossible to know either way, is it not? How do I "look into it" What would confirm for me that it is or is not an error?

ISAW wrote:

Why do you gravitate towards pointing out only those you consider to be "errors"?

I gravitate towards those errors which are obviously errors, because the point is to show the Bible contains errors. I, if I was a glutten for punishment, could probably spend a decade debating with a Christian if the passage you quote is or is not an biblical error, and we probably would never find a solution. On the other hand I know what pi is. I know hares don't chew cud.

Once it has been shown that the Bible contains errors I don't really have a further point, beyond that it shouldn't be taught as the infalliable word for word of God.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote:

Yes ... we have meetings on Fridays entitled "How to screw with Christians" ...:p

Aha! The Secular humanist conspiracy! I knoew it!

And you are right I can't speak for anyone but myself. But I see fundamentalist ideas proping up on this forum all the time. To say that fundamentalism is not what this forum is about is all well and good, but that doesn't mean that fundamentalist view points are not commonly expressed here.

True and one also sees non bel;ievers not just expressing their views but attacking the basis of other peoples views. That in itself is allowed though one might expect Christians discussing Christianity rather then fundies arguing with atheists! . Oddly you couldnt do it on the paranormal forum. You would be banned for that!

How many people here come to this forum with a completely open mind? How many Christians here have an open mind that it might all just be nonsense?

Well who was it who said "keep an open mind...but not so open your brain falls out"?

Of course there is nothing wrong with that. If everyone had an open mind about something no one would ever post opinions on internet bulletin boards.

this is germane to the particular point. Debate is not just about about defending a position and attacking the op[position. In oparliament and courts we witness this. But in truth things are not all black and white. So it is valid to hold an opinion but be open to accepting something at odds with it.

People become believers because of that. some become athiests because of it. People believe in "dark energy" and "wormholes" without knowing what exactly they are. People believe in an accepted scientific theory like geocentrism and yet fringe elements believe otherwise and set to prove heliocentrism.

Kepler was a religious fundamentalist and believed in proof of God in Mathematics but developed Kepler's Laws after years and years of not being able to prove it and getting the evidence.

You didn't "make that clear" ISAW. You stated it in a wholely unconvincing manner.

Yes i did! Not at the start. and why? i explained that! Because I didnt want people to think they could find one since they probably wouldnt do any work on it.

You had a solution, a solution you clearly put weight in. Otherwise you would not have started the thread.
[/quite]
Wrong again! I still don't know the "solution"!

While a lot of people here enjoy pointing out possible errors in the Bible you are not one of them, and you have in the past stated that you dislike this practice.

This is fallacious.

ISAW has not posted a possible error in the Bible therefore ISAW will never post one. All swans are white until you see a black one. to judge the objective arguement on your opinion of the personal belief of the poster isnt being open minded is it?

In fact it betrays an opinion of "I only want to discuss the Bible where I believe an actual error in it is being shown" . that is entirely against the basis of this discussion group all be it allowed. Basically is its saying " i only come her to scoff and throw stones at Believers". It is a position of the Pharasee and the self righteous people who tried to "catch out" Christ by offering puzzles and problems to him. But Christ was more interested in showing them a lifestyle and how to live in a certian way rather than argue points of law.

It was therefore obvious that this was not what you were doing.

I explained what I was doing.
I was posting a puzzle.
I didnt want to admity there were known solutions.
I eventually did admit that.

there are TWO I know of. The jewish one - which is possibly wrong, and one done by Pratt which ois possibly correct. I don't know!

Depends on if you take that passage literally. If you do then that is an error.

and if one doesnt it isnt an error. Most Christians do not take the Bible literally. So the group should reflect that.

The Bible also describes a circle as having a circumference 3 times its diameter.

But even modern commentators cant write down a number for PI. It is always an approximation!

[snip other references]

If one doesn't take these passages as literal, or accepts that they were the work of men of the time and as such could get things wrong, then there is no problem. And I've no problem with that. Most if not all of my Christian friends do this. They don't think the Bible is the infalliable word of God, they thing the Bible is a book about a religion, the same religion they follow today. If they wrote down what they believed they might make mistakes, but that doesn't mean what they believe is wrong.

this is a completly acceptable position. One MOST I would say the vast majoroity of Christians believe/take.

Because it appears impossible to know either way, is it not? How do I "look into it" What would confirm for me that it is or is not an error?

I don't know. Is it? i haven't looked into it enough.

I gravitate towards those errors which are obviously errors, because the point is to show the Bible contains errors.

But there are loads of sites about that. You also accept do you that the "science" preached by the vast majority of scientists was in error? Galileo fell out with academics the "scientists " of the day. That was what caused problems for him . Peripathetic philosophers not the Church. Doctors of Philosophy who were well versed in all the arguemtns on their side and were only interested in showwing the opposition up but were not perpared to actually go and try out what was suggested to them since it was "obviously wrong since it is against what we believe"

I, if I was a glutten for punishment, could probably spend a decade debating with a Christian if the passage you quote is or is not an biblical error, and we probably would never find a solution. On the other hand I know what pi is. I know hares don't chew cud.

But can you write the number PI down? I dont know the context of the hare thing. was it in with beasts one should eat?

Once it has been shown that the Bible contains errors I don't really have a further point, beyond that it shouldn't be taught as the infalliable word for word of God.

Fine! So you happen to agree with church teaching on it then.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote:

and if one doesnt it isnt an error. Most Christians do not take the Bible literally. So the group should reflect that.

You need to talk to BC or one of the other mods about that. At the moment the group certainly does not seem to reflect that position.

In fact that position seems to be completely rejected by a number of the regular posters here.

ISAW wrote:

But even modern commentators cant write down a number for PI. It is always an approximation!

True, but there are workable approximations and non-workable approximations. "3" is a non-workable approximation.

ISAW wrote:

this is a completly acceptable position. One MOST I would say the vast majoroity of Christians believe/take.

It may be the position most Christians take, but it does not appear to be the position most Christians who are regular posters to this forum take.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055038105

ISAW wrote:

You also accept do you that the "science" preached by the vast majority of scientists was in error?

Yes, happily. It is one of the requirements of science that one recognises that errors or mistakes will happen. Otherwise we wouldn't ever learn anything.

Science works under the assumption that we can never know for sure how something in the universe actually works. While are models of some phenomena might actually represent it correctly, we can never know if this is the case, and more often than not it won't be the case.

I personally think it would be far more healthy if religion worked in a similar fashion, that it recognised that (assuming God exists, which I imagine you all do) we view God through a filter of humanity, and that while we may certain believe God exists, we can never be sure if our filter is giving us a complete or accurate picture of God.

Unfortunately that kinda goes against one of the fundamental roles that religion provides for people, that being a sense of certainty and security from uncertainty, about the world around us. Uncertainty, about anything but particularly about matters such as morality, purpose, and spirituality, can be daunt and confusing. The certainty of religion provides comfort from this, but equally leads to many many problems.

ISAW wrote:

But can you write the number PI down?

You can to the point that it will be useful in construction or enginering. But if you try and build a circle structure with Pi as 3 you will fail.

ISAW wrote:

I dont know the context of the hare thing. was it in with beasts one should eat?

Leviticus 11
6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you.

Chewing the cud is a process where an animal will chew food into their stomachs, then regergitate it back into their mouths and chew it some more. It is clear from translations that the writers of the Bible understood this process, but they incorrectly assumed that rabbits (hares in different translations) do this. They don't.

ISAW wrote:

Fine! So you happen to agree with church teaching on it then.

If you mean the Catholic teaching yes I do (not to say I agree with Catholic teaching). But as I stated from experience most regular Christian posters here don't. Just ask Wolfsbane, JC or BC, to of the biggest posters here, if they accept that the Bible can contain mistakes or errors. I have been told by them both that doing so would mean you could never believe anything in the Bible and as such would have no reason to follow it. That is clearly not true, but you need to explain your position to them, not me.