snafui
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 169
|
Post by snafui on Mar 6, 2007 9:45:20 GMT -5
Here is a short list from Biblical Errancy of contradictions in the Bible:
For "b," versions of this were changed to 22 to match the previously mentioned verse.
For "c" the same was done as above.
For "f" it's a typo; the second sited verse is 8 not 6. And the name was changed in some versions.
For "g" reading the whole passage you see that the writer calls him a "nephew" in one spot and "brother" in another. The apologist argument here is that "brother" should be a reference to a "relative." Note this is a change made again to a verse with an excuse added later to justify the error.
For "i" the apologist argument I've heard is down right comical: there are different levels of death in the Bible and two of the times he hadn't really died yet. Umm... yeah, right.
For "o" it is again to laugh... a book that is supposedly written without error says "about" eight days. You mean the Holy Spirit can't guide you to know the exact count, so you guess?
|
|
|
Post by necroshine on Mar 8, 2007 6:50:02 GMT -5
counting back thin wasnt that imporant to anyone like speling is to me. lol
|
|
|
Post by guerrillasaint on Mar 10, 2007 21:16:49 GMT -5
The Bible has around 807,361 words in it. It has 31,173 verses and 1,189 chapters about forty authors. And you have listed 17 typos.
|
|
snafui
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 169
|
Post by snafui on Mar 11, 2007 6:26:59 GMT -5
Typos? The enerrent Word of God, passed through the ages, by men led by the Holy Spirit and you call these just a matter of typos?
These are called errors, and getting an entire name wrong is hardly a typo. Think about that argument a bit before relying on the source on which it was received. If those are typos (or the old "copyist error's" argument) then what else is changed that we don't know? What else is in that book that is interjection? Opinion? Editing? All done by "copyists?"
And if you want more, try putting the Resurrection story together from all sources in The Bible into a single narrative and you will again have many errors:
|
|
|
Post by guerrillasaint on Mar 12, 2007 16:49:44 GMT -5
You mean I need to question the Almighty the One that came to me and told me He was God and shows me how much of a God he is every day because some people made a few mistakes? You know what, I’ll give you this. I knew God way before I knew the Bible. It isn't what I worship nor do I worship the ones who wrote it. Still, He has told me that he has given me his word so that I may know it. It is the truth even though there are typos in it. If you accidentally spell my name wrong that doesn't mean I stop existing and that all that I do is questionable. NO. It is your wish not to believe so you grasp to a few typos and your human knowledge to explain away God. You can’t escape him because your view point is still based on him. If you wish not to believe what the Bible says then look around at nature this world we live in isn't an accident. What we need to exist is to particular to be an accident. Look at your body , the human mind and matter. The fact that if you look deep enough into cells, atoms, elections, Protons, neutrons, pions, quarks they don‘t touch and they are so infinite. This is too masterful to be an accident. There is so much we don't know about ourselves, our world, our universe. Still you can sit there and say there is no God with assurance? Do you know what is going to happen tomorrow? Do you know what is going on in another country to some random person right now? Where you here when this world was created? Still you know there is no God. Where is your proof?
|
|
dan
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 116
|
Post by dan on Jun 28, 2007 18:28:23 GMT -5
Snafui, you brought up some apparent contradictions in the Bible, regarding the story of the empty tomb of Christ. Here are some viable solutions:
[/li][li]A. At what time in the morning did the women visit the tomb?- At the rising of the sun (Mark 16:2) vs. when it was yet dark (John 20:1)[/quote]
Either it is two ways of saying the same thing - or there were two different groups of women, arriving at different times.
[/li][li]B. Who came?- Mary Magdalene alone (John 20:1) vs. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matt. 28:1) vs. Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome (Mark 16:1) vs. Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and other women (Luke 24:10)[/quote]
If there were two groups (and this is entirely possible), the first group consisted of Mary Magdelene and other women, as mentioned in John, Matthew, and Mark. Even John, the book that mentions only Mary Magdelene, indicates that more people came with her: "Then she [Mary Magdelene] ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and said to them, `They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him' " (John 20:2). The fact that Mary Magdelene said "we" indicates that there were other people with her when she went to the tomb.
The remaining women mentioned in Luke were in the second group, but both groups came back and reported the events at the tomb, as Luke 24:10 states.
[/li][li]C. Was the tomb opened or closed when they arrived? - Open (Luke 24:2) vs. closed (Matt 28:1-2) [/quote]
Matthew doesn't say that the women actually saw the tombstone get moved, but that it had been moved. This is no contradiction.
[/li][li]D. Whom did they see at the tomb?- The angel (Matt. 28:2) vs. a young man (Mark 16:5) vs. two men (Luke 24:4) vs. two angels (John 20:11-12)[/quote]
The angel and the young man could be the same - angels often appeared in the form of humans. The fact that there were two angels can be explained in one of two ways: (1) There were two groups of women arriving at different times; or (2) The one angel that is mentioned in Matt and Mark is the chief spokesman of the two angels, so there was no need to talk about both of the angles.
[/li][li]E. Were these men or angels inside or outside the tomb? -Outside (Matt. 28.2) vs. inside (Mark 16:5, Luke 24:3-4, John 20:11-12). [/quote]
Matthew doesn't specify that the angel was outside when the women actually arrived, only that he was immediately after he rolled the stone away.
[/li][li]F. Were they standing or sitting? - Standing (Luke 24:4) vs. sitting (Matt. 28:2, Mark 16:5, John 20:12). [/quote]
The angels were "sitting" when the first group of women arrived (Mark), "standing" when the second group came (Luke), and then "sitting" back down after the women left and Mary Magdelene came back to the tomb and stayed there alone (John). (The last two events may be in reverse order chronologically, but either way it works.)
[/li][li]G. Did Mary Magdalene know Jesus when he first appeared to her?-Yes, she did (Matt. 28:9) vs. no she did not (John 20:14). [/quote]
You have to remember that Mary Magdelene left the first group of women and ran back to the disciples alone (John 20:1-2). While she ran back, the women who remained at the tomb saw the angel and later Jesus (Matt. 28:9). So Mary wasn't even with the group when they saw Jesus in Matt. 28:9, so there is no contradiction.
|
|
snafui
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 169
|
Post by snafui on Jun 29, 2007 6:09:00 GMT -5
rationalize One entry found for rationalize. Main Entry: ra·tio·nal·ize Pronunciation: 'rash-n&-"lIz, 'ra-sh&-n&-"lIz Function: verb Inflected Form(s): -ized; -iz·ing transitive verb 1 : to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable: as a : to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of <rationalize a myth> b : to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother>; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem> 2 : to free (a mathematical expression) from irrational parts <rationalize a denominator> 3 : to apply the principles of scientific management to (as an industry or its operations) for a desired result (as increased efficiency) source: www.m-w.com/dictionary/rationalizationRationalize all you like... they are errors, period. Don't know where you got that garbage. There is no scripture to support your claims.
|
|
dan
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 116
|
Post by dan on Jul 1, 2007 15:28:17 GMT -5
rationalize One entry found for rationalize. Main Entry: ra·tio·nal·ize Pronunciation: 'rash-n&-"lIz, 'ra-sh&-n&-"lIz Function: verb Inflected Form(s): -ized; -iz·ing transitive verb 1 : to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable: as a : to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of <rationalize a myth> b : to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother>; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem> 2 : to free (a mathematical expression) from irrational parts <rationalize a denominator> 3 : to apply the principles of scientific management to (as an industry or its operations) for a desired result (as increased efficiency) source: www.m-w.com/dictionary/rationalizationRationalize all you like... they are errors, period. Don't know where you got that garbage. You have still not explained why the answers I gave to the apparent Bible difficulties are not valid solutions; you simply quoted the definition for "rationalize", which is not a response at all to my points. What do you mean? All my answers were based on Scripture, and none of them contradict Scripture.
|
|
snafui
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 169
|
Post by snafui on Jul 2, 2007 14:11:51 GMT -5
The Gospels are re-written versions of the Gospel written prior to it, there is no support for your arguments. It doesn't say there are two groups of women. To try and say there are, to try and say everything you said is just a cop-out. This is suppose to be the inerrant word of God, these are glaring contradictions. You are speculating on things not supported to come to your rationalizations.
All the questions still stand. You have not proved a thing. If you think you have, try to claim your prize from the guy that has offered a significant amount of money for anyone to clear these contradictions up. No one ever has. And unlike Hovind's garbage challenge his has no strings attached.
And as the standard Christian apologetic bullcrap you used to try and clarify these, use your own brain. They are contradictions and no you do not have a solution.
You need to come to grips with reality. The Bible is garbage written by men to control other men into doing their own bidding for personal power. Christianity is not original in any way, shape nor form. It stole all it's ideas from other religions and socially engineered a belief system at the start the new age. Look at the Bible, why do you think the number 12 comes up so much? It's based on the Zodiac! Why do you think Jesus used 12 loaves of bread and 2 fish to feed the masses? Two fish are the symbol of the new age that had started, Pisces. Christianity is a fraud, a scam, go read something other that garbage spewed by money grubbing apologists that are afraid of losing their income. Apologists prey on ignorance, I know, they did mine for years until it finally click that they were making the crap up and had no basis for their arguments; in other words, they are lying to you!
|
|
dan
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 116
|
Post by dan on Jul 3, 2007 22:25:51 GMT -5
The Gospels are re-written versions of the Gospel written prior to it, there is no support for your arguments. It doesn't say there are two groups of women. That doesn't matter. The point is, it is possible that there were two groups of women, and thus there is no certainty that we have a contradiction. If there were no possible solutions, then we would have a definite contradiction. But since there are possible solutions, that shows that there doesn't have to be a contradiction. Consider the following two statements: (1) I was born in 1985 (2) I was not born in 1985 There is no possible way to reconcile those two statements, and so they must be contradictions. Consider a different set of statements: (1) I went to the store today at 5:00 (2) I went to a restaurant today at 5:00 At first glance, this appears to be a contradiction. However, there are possible scenarios that would cause the apparent contradiction to disappear: for instance, perhaps the restaurant is part of the store, such as in Wal-Mart. Or perhaps the person went to the store at 5:00 am and to the restaurant at 5:00 pm. The point is, because there are possible solutions to the apparently conflicting statements, we cannot say for a fact that the person is contradicting himself. In the same way, because there are possible solutions to the apparent contradictions you brought up from the Bible, we cannot say for a fact that they are contradictions.
|
|
snafui
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 169
|
Post by snafui on Jul 3, 2007 23:09:40 GMT -5
Clearly you are not understanding what you are reading one iota. They are contradictions and there is no way using your argument you can get out of that. Just because you would like to believe that there are two groups of women without anything in the INERRENT word of God, saying so doesn't mean there was.
You keep missing that aspect, INERRENT. It's an error and there are countless others, to try and gloss one a way with such an absurd argument is getting silly. Your argument holds no validity without solid proof, you have none but speculation.
And this line of reasoning:
That doesn't apply, if it were the INERRENT word of God you wouldn't be able to find this kind of contradiction because it should be clear enough as to not be in question. Again you are arguing from speculation of what may or may not be. You are providing no proof to your argument.
ps I could also just as easliy speculate that those are two different people talking, but I have no proof and neither do you.
|
|
snafui
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 169
|
Post by snafui on Jul 3, 2007 23:14:34 GMT -5
And by the way, I keep focusing on your silly argument and left this out twice.
So you must believe that Mary Magelene went to the tomb twice? If so then why wouldn't the Bible, inspired by the Holy Spirit make that known?
|
|
dan
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 116
|
Post by dan on Jul 3, 2007 23:27:07 GMT -5
Clearly you are not understanding what you are reading one iota. They are contradictions and there is no way using your argument you can get out of that. Just because you would like to believe that there are two groups of women without anything in the INERRENT word of God, saying so doesn't mean there was. Again, I am not saying that there definitely were two groups of women, I am only saying that if there were two groups of women (and this is certainly a possibility), then the contradiction would disappear. And since there is nothing saying that there could not have been two groups of women, we have a possible solution here. Thus, you cannot say for certain that it is a contradiction. Again, you cannot be certain that it is an error, because there exist possible solutions that would cause the error to disappear, as I pointed out above. Must the Bible record every possible detail in every story? No, the accounts only include what the authors thought necessary to record. The same holds for any article you would read in a modern newspaper or magazine.
|
|
|
Post by Superhappyjen on Jul 14, 2007 6:37:18 GMT -5
Just thought I'd jump in here. As someone who has worked for a magazine as a writer and a fact-checker, I can tell you that even APPARENT contradictions within a story cannot be tolerated. It decreases the credibility of the publication. We publish differing opinions, but this is always indicated. If there are apparent contradictions in the facts, that are not actual contradictions, then they must be explained. Of course that doesn't mean that every single detail has to be reported, but magazines and newpapers have a responsibility for clarity. I don't see why God can't hold up to the same standards.
|
|
dan
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 116
|
Post by dan on Jul 15, 2007 22:01:57 GMT -5
Just thought I'd jump in here. As someone who has worked for a magazine as a writer and a fact-checker, I can tell you that even APPARENT contradictions within a story cannot be tolerated. Certainly, apparent contradictions within a story, as you say, cannot be tolerated. However, that isn't what I'm talking about here. I'm referring to apparent contradictions that come to light after reading 4 entirely separate accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). It would be like an event reported in USA Today, the New York Times, and Democrat and Chronicle. Apparent contradictions can occur when more than one source reports an event. Again, I need to stress here that the resurrection of Christ is reported in 4 different accounts, not a single publication, and that is when the apparent contradictions surface.
|
|