Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
The Bible Contradictions Thread
-
15-11-2009 9:25pm#1Why this thread?
To provide a forum for critical and reasoned debate on the blatant contradictions in both the Bibles content and the claims of its inerrancy and moral consistency made by its followers.Why not in the Christianity thread?
See rule 1. of the Christianity charter:1. The purpose of this forum is to discuss Christian belief in general, and specific elements of it, between Christians and non-Christians alike. This forum has the additional purpose of being a point on Boards.ie where Christians may ask other Christians questions about their shared faith. In this regard, Christians should not have to defend their faith from overt or subtle attack.Why is it relevant to A&A?
There are many posters in this thread who believe that religion is the source of much trouble in our country/world, with the Catholic church at the forefront in the former. This thread could serve as a resource to debase the very moral authority that Catholicism claims, or simply display to Boardsies why so many people abandon religious belief.Can we post funny yet relevant videos?
Yes, of course you can:
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for Atheism ever conceived.
- Issac Asimov1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00B3IqCvZdEComments
-
Allow me
Firstly those who claims its literal inerrancy are nuts.
We could discuss the discrepancies, but could I suggest that we avoid the Literal Inerrant proponents idiotic responses and focus on the more accepted Christian views.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Considering that the vast majority of people on this forum in a poll said that they hadn't read the Bible, with many saying that they never intend to it is quite interesting that people deem themselves qualified to discuss based on this topic without doing so / intending to do so
I anticipate the following:
People will not distinguish the differing relationships that God has with the Jewish people pre-Christ, to the relationship that God has with people of all nations who choose to follow Him post-Christ.
People will ignore Covenantal Theology when assessing the Scriptures.
People will not contextualise adequately based on the above.
People will resort to mere googling of lists that people have compiled (and which fall short on closer analysis), hence buying the thoughts and opinions of others without thinking for themselves.
This thread will be more concerned with confirmation bias based on assumptions, pre-conceptions rather than actually engaging with the texts.
I'll be interested to see what the tangible outcome is however 0 -
-
Considering that the vast majority of people on this forum in a poll said that they hadn't read the Bible, with many saying that they never intend to it is quite interesting that people deem themselves qualified to discuss based on this topic without doing so / intending to do so
Tbh I'd be surprised if the amount on the Christian forum who have read it is higher than here.I anticipate the following:
People will not distinguish the differing relationships that God has with the Jewish people pre-Christ, to the relationship that God has with people of all nations who choose to follow Him post-Christ.
Yes, the idea of a being who exists outside of time changing his mind over a time period will probably be laughed out of here like it would in most places, since there's no charter protection. It is quite hilarious actually.Dades wrote:A few well worn examples will be trotted out, Jakkass and PDN will arrive to correct perceived misinterpretations (as is their right), everyone will bogged down in the tiny details, words like exegesis and and conflation will be bandied about and everyone will get a bit ratty.
Pretty much I reckon.
Not before the defence of genocide and "the people wanted to made into salves/raped" :rolleyes:0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Yes they had a means of a relationship that is considered extremely immoral because apparently god didn't explain it to them properly. I don't care what christians now think it means based on the new testament because the Jews could not possibly have taken the same meaning from it. The objective moral standard they received from Yahweh is different to the objective moral standard you received from himOr. That the full meaning wasn't revealed to them as yet. They still had a means of a relationship with God.Anyhow, as a Christian, I discuss Christianity, not Judaism. Although I do find Judaism interesting.
Ah yes I forgot about this one. They'll refer to the old testament at will in sermons and in their daily lives and interpret it and justify it until the cows come home but when all else fails they do a bit of Pontius Pilate and wash their hands of it. This was the old version of their unchanging perfectly moral god and it's madness to ask christians to justify the things their god prescribed and did before his son was born :rolleyes:
What criminals should do is commit any crime they want and then have a son. The christian judge will no doubt acquit him on the basis that those things were done before his son was born and that he's changed now.............even though he's an unchanging perfectly moral being 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
Yes they had a means of a relationship that is considered extremely immoral because apparently god didn't explain it to them properly. I don't care what christians now think it means based on the new testament because the Jews could not possibly have taken the same meaning from it. The objective moral standard they received from Yahweh is different to the objective moral standard you received from him
The objective moral standard is pretty much the same. How God deals with sin, is different.
I don't consider it immoral to reveal a message in context for different people, at different times, in different circumstances. I don't see how the relationship between the Israelites and their God is immoral in the first place.
Each step of revelation was bringing us closer to the advent of Christ.Hebrews 10:1 wrote:For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near.
^^ an idea of my understanding of the Torah.Ah yes I forgot about this one. They'll refer to the old testament at will in sermons and in their daily lives and interpret it and justify it until the cows come home but when all else fails they do a bit of Pontius Pilate and wash their hands of it. This was the old version of their unchanging perfectly moral god and it's madness to ask christians to justify the things their god prescribed and did before his son was born :rolleyes:
I'm sure Christians can and do justify what God did in the Old Testament, however we also have to factor in the likelihood of futility in doing so.What criminals should do is commit any crime they want and then have a son. The christian judge will no doubt acquit him on the basis that those things were done before his son was born and that he's changed now.............even though he's an unchanging perfectly moral being
God didn't commit any crime. In fact I don't even think God did anything that could be considered horrendous in consideration.
God has remained the same. In fact what is sinful morally has remained the same since the first revelations.I'd be surprised if they did. They give god a free pass to commit immoral acts and call them moral because of who he is. Believers throughout history have shown a willingness and even eagerness to commit immoral acts if they think it's what god wants. It's one of the many things that show the inferiority of religious morality because it's based on the logical fallacy of an argument from authority instead of reason
If God is the standard of morality, He cannot commit anything against His own standard.0 -
"Pretty much" the same is not the same.The objective moral standard is pretty much the same. How God deals with sin, is different.
Simply the act of revealing different messages is not immoral but if one of those messages permits the owning and beating of slaves along with conquest and enslavement in the name of god then it certainly is immoral. And if the moral message changes over time then it's not an objective standard, it's one based on cultural context and is as variable as any secular standard. Why would we even read the bible for a moral standard? God could pop down tomorrow and give us the "context" in a new revelation that changes everything. Suddenly killing could be moral again as it was whenever god commanded it in the old testament.I don't consider it immoral to reveal a message in context for different people, at different times, in different circumstances. I don't see how the relationship between the Israelites and their God is immoral in the first place.
Each step of revelation was bringing us closer to the advent of Christ.
Yeah sure I wiped out the whole human race except for two people last week for the craic. Nothing immoral about that at allGod didn't commit any crime. In fact I don't even think God did anything that could be considered horrendous in consideration.
Yes that's what I said, well done on restating my pointIf God is the standard of morality, He cannot commit anything against His own standard. There's probably little point arguing that anything in the bible is immoral because christians don't define morality as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" as people who base their moral standards on reason do, their moral standard is "whatever the bible says is moral" and things that would be immoral if we did them suddenly become moral if god apparently commands them. 0 -
-
-
-
Hey, it's your wall - feel free to bang your head against it.
I honestly don't think that I am going to get Christian posters to proclaim that the Bible is errant(?) or that Gods morals are not consistent, much like we don't expect JC or Wolfsbane to declare that Darwin was right all along in "that" thread.
But that's not really the point, Dades. Is it?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Here is a really great video made by a former Christian where he recalls the trouble reconciling the Judas problem.0 -
I linked to where I got each of the explanations. The generally accepted version is that Judas hanged himself and then the rope broke or someone cut him down and he fell headlong and burst open but that's not what either story saysWith Respect,
You need to be careful who you're quoting.
If you are quoting literal inerrant whackjobs please stop, as they tend to be worse than creationist arguments.
Try to find the more sophisticated (and respected) theologians answers (e.g Vatican, Anglican Bishops etc).
These people admit there are errors/disrepancies within the bible, so it's their understanding we really need to establish and debate. Not the pathetic nutters.
At this point we reach the inevitable problem with biblical interpretation, that neither of us can say the other is wrong because our interpretations are untestable. I'm reading it as it's written and when I see two different stories I say "those stories are different" but that's because I don't have a religiously motivated desire for the stories not to be different so I make no attempt to come up with theories to try to explain the discrepancies in a way that makes them appear not to be discrepancies. I call a spade a spade whereas they come up with a theory that the spade may actually have been a figurative spade meant to symbolise something or other and then condescend to me when I call BS on their interpretation.
One thing I can do though is that when they come up with an interpretation to try to explain away an apparent error I can use the correct meaning of the word in saying "it's just a theory"
Also, at best the stories both leave parts out leaving us to question what else might have been left out of the various retellings of events. Maybe Jesus never died at all?0 -
I linked to where I got each of the explanations. The generally accepted version is that Judas hanged himself and then the rope broke or someone cut him down and he fell headlong and burst open but that's not what either story says
At this point we reach the inevitable problem with biblical interpretation, that neither of us can say the other is wrong because our interpretations are untestable. I'm reading it as it's written and when I see two different stories I say "those stories are different" but that's because I don't have a religiously motivated desire for the stories not to be different so I make no attempt to come up with theories to try to explain the discrepancies in a way that makes them appear not to be discrepancies. I call a spade a spade whereas they come up with a theory that the spade may actually have been a figurative spade meant to symbolise something or other and then condescend to me when I call BS on their interpretation.
One thing I can do though is that when they come up with an interpretation to try to explain away an apparent error I can use the correct meaning of the word in saying "it's just a theory"
Also, at best the stories both leave parts out leaving us to question what else might have been left out of the various retellings of events. Maybe Jesus never died at all?
Yeah, but you see you kinda missed my point.
Alot of Theologians acknowledge the contradictions and don't even bother offering ridiculous excuses for them.
When it comes to Jesus's death there is more than one source telling us about meaning they have a better credibility and consistency behind the idea that the character of Jesus reportedly died.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wx_S9h6IQg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZI6gynXc7E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj7VSGmKRPw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70SYwkoH_ycAdvertisement