Contradictions in the Bible

[exchemist]

I agree with you. About half of "science" has been at some time or another proven false. Who knows what we think is scientific "truth" today will not subsequently be shown to be false. Using history as a guide, one could conclude about half of it. And we think we understand the nature of things! The foolishness of God is truly infinitely higher than the wisdom of man.

It follows that using science to interpret the Bible would give a 50/50 chance of getting it right. I don't think that is what God intended. He wants us to know. The scriptures can be understood by reading them. They explain a lot more about true science than any of man's science explains about itself.

So presumably you think there is a only a 50:50 chance of getting to your destination when you fly, right?

Seriously, though, you are placing a lot of weight on this 50:50 ratio. How do you arrive at it? In particular, what criteria do you use to claim something is "proven false"? Most scientific knowledge grows by extension from what went before. So even when a theory is superseded for some purposes, the earlier one survives for a more limited field of application.

Is Newtonian mechanics "proven false", in your analysis, by the advent of relativity? Without understanding how you handle that, we would be right to be highly suspicious of this 50:50ratio of yours.

 

[rrobs]

This is all utter nonsense. You make up statistics and then use them to make your argument. This has a name. It is called a straw man.

Any comments on the content of the OP?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Any comments on the content of the OP?

Any responses to your immediate claims about science? References citing that 'proof' exists in science, that half of science has been disproven or that analysis cannot be applied to the Bible? Recall that your OP suggests an analysis of the Bible.

 

[rrobs]

So presumably you think there is a only a 50:5 chance of getting to your destination when you fly, right?

Seriously, though, you are placing a lot of weight on this 50:50 ratio. How do you arrive at it? In particular, what criteria do you use to claim something is "proven false"? Most scientific knowledge grows by extension from what went before. So even when a theory is superseded for some purposes, the earlier one survives for a more limited field of application.

Is Newtonian mechanics "proven false", in your analysis, by the advent of relativity? Without understanding how you handle that, we would be right to be highly suspicious of this 50:50ratio of yours.

I did in fact do some research to come up with the 50/50 figure. It's just how it is. Now I understand that most of what we know to be wrong were things from hundreds, if not thousands, of years ago. After all, scientists thought the earth was flat at one time. That would be included in the 50% wrong column. But is it right to think that in our modern time we have arrived at the apex of scientific knowledge? I would guess that is exactly what the flat earth scientists thought in their day. And yes I understand that we continue to learn and perfect our ideas. The scriptures mention something about that:

2Tim 3:7,

Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
​

Perhaps I should not have brought up the whole science thing anyway. It really has nothing to do with the OP, but things definitely have a way of going sideways in forums. I try to avoid it, but sometimes I just forget myself.

Do you have any comments on the actual content of the OP? Why might any of the points I mentioned not be helpful in clearing up apparent contradictions in the Bible?

 

[rrobs]

Any responses to your immediate claims about science? References citing that 'proof' exists in science, that half of science has been disproven or that analysis cannot be applied to the Bible? Recall that your OP suggests an analysis of the Bible.

Nope, no response on my part. You?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I did in fact do some research to come up with the 50/50 figure. It's just how it is. Now I understand that most of what we know to be wrong were things from hundreds, if not thousands, of years ago. After all, scientists thought the earth was flat at one time. That would be included in the 50% wrong column. But is it right to think that in our modern time we have arrived at the apex of scientific knowledge? I would guess that is exactly what the flat earth scientists thought in their day. And yes I understand that we continue to learn and perfect our ideas. The scriptures mention something about that:

Some people thought the world was flat. Not all people and not all of them were scientists. Of course, you are stretching science a bit too, in order to fulfill your claim.

The Bible supports a flat Earth. Science has revealed to us that the Earth is not flat. So you are listing the Bible in the 50% wrong column too.

2Tim 3:7,

Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
​

Perhaps I should not have brought up the whole science thing anyway. It really has nothing to do with the OP, but things definitely have a way of going sideways in forums. I try to avoid it, but sometimes I just forget myself.

You are presenting an analysis procedure that you claim eliminates 99% of the known contradictions. I do not see a record that would indicate that level of success or any level of success, but I have seen examples offered that defy your protocol.

Do you have any comments on the actual content of the OP? Why might any of the points I mentioned not be helpful in clearing up apparent contradictions in the Bible?

They are not very rigorous and examples that fall outside of them have already been offered.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nope, no response on my part. You?

So you are not going to defend your claims about science. Then we are agreed, they can be dismissed without further comment as meaningless and unsupported. Good.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And that from the bastion of knowledge! I should only dream to be as enlightned as yourself

That is from years of debate. It does not take too long to see who can reason rationally and admit when they are wrong and those that can't. Fundies seem to think that they have to deny being wrong, they can see their beliefs unraveling if they admit to any reality at all.

Check your premise. Do the people that you think follow the religion actually follow the religion?

They think that they do. I am not going to play the No True Scotsman game.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I can see you put a lot of effort into your answer, but I really think the last paragraph is the most relevant to our discussion. You could go on and on and I could go on and on, but, as you said, what good would it do?

Perhaps I was misguided in my OP. It was not my intention to debate the validity of the scriptures. It was intended for those with an open mind but had trouble with apparent contradictions. I thought it might help them as it did me when I was first exposed to the ideas I mentioned.

I am like most people that believe the scriptures, in that I can't possibly understand every single verse. With the passage of time and study, one can understand more, but there will always be questions. But I don't throw the whole thing out the window because there are some things I don't understand, because there are a few places that contradict. I look at the message as a whole and find it to be a most reliable guide to this life as well as giving me hope for the next life. I'll wait to learn the whole story perfectly. That time will come.

I certainly don't discard the message because of the acts by many who claim to follow the scriptures. I think it is very clear that all the atrocities you mentioned done in the name of God are not God's idea at all. They simply point out the depravity of mankind in general. God has nothing to do with their acts.

Well, as you might have gathered by now, I have also read the scriptures, but with a different world-view than yours. I have also read a great deal else, besides, including the great philosophers from the ancient Greeks right down to the philosophers still writing today. And I take from all of that the good that I find, and I dispute what I do not find good.

And of course, in trying to learn more about humanity, I have also read fiction, poetry and plays -- tons and tons of it, from Aeschylus and Sophocles and the Greeks, Apuleius and the Romans, through Sheridan, Shakespeare, Dostoevsky and Ibsen, the Brontes, Harper Lee and on and on and on. I read endlessly. And again, I learn about humanity, how we are driven, the ways we can be misguided, and I use what I find to be good, and I discard what I don't.

The problem for so many religious people is what others have said before -- that the scriptures, which are the works of human beings, contain a lot that's good, some that's very, very bad (murdering children, no matter how you try to justify it), and a lot that's story -- some true and some not true -- and myth. There's philosophy (Ecclesiastes), and there's even erotic poetry (Song of Solomon), just to lighten the tone. And religious people try to turn all of that hodge-podge into something they claim to be able to use in its totality as a "guide to life."

For myself, it's just not enough. I can't see it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did in fact do some research to come up with the 50/50 figure. It's just how it is. Now I understand that most of what we know to be wrong were things from hundreds, if not thousands, of years ago. After all, scientists thought the earth was flat at one time. That would be included in the 50% wrong column. But is it right to think that in our modern time we have arrived at the apex of scientific knowledge? I would guess that is exactly what the flat earth scientists thought in their day. And yes I understand that we continue to learn and perfect our ideas. The scriptures mention something about that:

2Tim 3:7,

Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
​

Perhaps I should not have brought up the whole science thing anyway. It really has nothing to do with the OP, but things definitely have a way of going sideways in forums. I try to avoid it, but sometimes I just forget myself.

Do you have any comments on the actual content of the OP? Why might any of the points I mentioned not be helpful in clearing up apparent contradictions in the Bible?

Even though peer reviewed articles are wrong quite often even the failures lead to growth in knowledge. Scientists that work in the field are not afraid to put their ideas out there. We do not see that with creationists. I cannot remember the last time that a creationist came up with a testable hypothesis for their beliefs. When an idea is shown to be wrong scientists quite often learn from their mistakes. That is still a good thing. Creationists strive for the untestable. Their ideas fall into the realm of "Not even wrong". In other words they probably are wrong, but since the idea cannot be tested there is no evidence for it either way. No advance in science is made by them.

 

[Audie]

I am not sure I am aware of a distinction between the two.

Oh yeah. Me too also not either

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nope, no response on my part. You?

I am actually spending some time going through your OP. When I have something I think is a worthy response, I will post it. In the meantime, there are the claims of the additional posts to consider and address.

 

[sooda]

I did in fact do some research to come up with the 50/50 figure. It's just how it is. Now I understand that most of what we know to be wrong were things from hundreds, if not thousands, of years ago. After all, scientists thought the earth was flat at one time. That would be included in the 50% wrong column. But is it right to think that in our modern time we have arrived at the apex of scientific knowledge? I would guess that is exactly what the flat earth scientists thought in their day. And yes I understand that we continue to learn and perfect our ideas. The scriptures mention something about that:

2Tim 3:7,

Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
​

Perhaps I should not have brought up the whole science thing anyway. It really has nothing to do with the OP, but things definitely have a way of going sideways in forums. I try to avoid it, but sometimes I just forget myself.

Do you have any comments on the actual content of the OP? Why might any of the points I mentioned not be helpful in clearing up apparent contradictions in the Bible?

No.... they didn't think the earth was flat.. There have always been hills, and valleys, mountains, deserts, rivers and caves.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No.... they didn't think the earth was flat.. There have always been hills, and valleys, mountains, deserts, rivers and caves.

I think that we have to take this in context. By "flat" one means not a sphere. Or a cylinder. More like a pizza, which are not "flat" either.

 

[sooda]

I think that we have to take this in context. By "flat" one means not a sphere. Or a cylinder. More like a pizza, which are not "flat" either.

OH... silly me.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I think that we have to take this in context. By "flat" one means not a sphere. Or a cylinder. More like a pizza, which are not "flat" either.

But even then, we certainly can't say that most "ancient scientists" thought the earth was flat. Eratosthenes (276-195/4 BCE) managed a fairly good (for the time) estimate of the circumference of the earth, knowing, as he did, that it had a circumference. He made the (quite good) assumption that the sun's rays striking the earth were essentially parallel (another really good guess), and then measuring the angle of incidence a known distance apart north-to-south. (He also pretty accurately described the tilt in the earth's axis.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Oh I have no quarrel with the idea that God's words should be both pure and true. But awkwardly, there is also at least one passage in the bible that says God lies, drawn to my attention by @Good-Ole-Rebel , namely 1 Kings 22: 20-23. Or maybe we should see this as lying by proxy, like the Mafia boss telling his hitman to kill someone rather than doing it himself, so it's OK?

But none of these is saying the bible is God's word and has to be taken verbatim. That is my point.

As for my own view, I rather incline to St John's ... "the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us..."

It seems to me perfectly ridiculous to take, for example, a semi-mythologised history of the Jews, as recited in Kings, as "the word of God" and therefore all literally true. It is an offence against reason to do that.

Doesn't say God lies. Says God sent a lying spirit to those who rejected the Truth.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

You also said that one would happen for sure. There is logically only one that you could know would happen for sure. The other is mere belief.

We need to brush up those logic skills just a tad.

Yes, the one that would happen for sure is the second one, with God. No problem there.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Like it or not you are still claiming that God is a liar.

No, you are.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

You're making that up.

No.

Good-Ole-Rebel