• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Skeptics Always Search For Scenarios to Deny the Facts:

iris89

Active Member
Skeptics Always Search For Scenarios to Deny the Facts:



INTRODUCTION:



Skeptics and critics of the Bible are always trying to come up with scenarios and off-beat reasoning to deny Bible facts. This is even so with those who believe in Bible knockoff books whose authors plagiarized from the Bible and did not even do a good copy job. No surprise, this has always been the way of those per 2 Corinthians 4:4, “in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn [upon them]” (American Standard Version; ASV). There will always be those who wish to criticize the Bible on one concept or another such as one saying such self serving nonsense as, <<” While "most scholars" is certainly not the same as "all scholars", it is worth keeping in mind a a large number of highly trained Biblical Scholars do not believe that 2 Timothy is Pauline.”>>. Or claiming contradictions without realizing just what contradictions actually are.



Let’s stop and look at what contradictions actually are. The Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary defines them as follows:



contradict [Show phonetics]
verb [I or T]
(of people) to state the opposite of what someone else has said, or (of one fact or statement) to be so different from another fact or statement that one of them must be wrong:
If you're both going to lie, at least stick to the same story and don't contradict each other!
[R] He kept contradicting himself when we were arguing - I think he was a bit confused.
How dare you contradict (me)!
Recent evidence has tended to contradict established theories on this subject. [source - Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary]

The Bible is the word of God (YHWH) and God (YHWH) no where contradicts himself. However, many different individuals find what they call contradictions, but this is no surprise as so many have their own beliefs rather than accept the Bible as the Standard; therefore, they claim the Bible has contradictions. However, this claim must be considered in what they are calling contradictions which is anything that does not go with their preconceived view of the world. So of course when many individuals have their own agendas they will of course find many contradictions in the Bible with regard their own view or outlook. For example, one fellow told me he found over 7,000 contradictions in the American Standard Version in that it used God's (YHWH's) most commonly rendered English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton and that this was not the correct pronunciation. True it probably is NOT the correct pronunciation as it was pronounced in ancient Hebrew that did NOT have vowels but only constants. But, this is nothing but a so what!




So when reading this or that person says the Bible has contradictions, the question never answered really is contradictions with what. Of course the contradiction is with respect their opinion or outlook which of course accounts for nothing. So claimed contradictions are nothing but a relative thing related to an individuals outlook on the world around them and has no basis in absolute truth or reality. That is why I never give them any count or importance as many in ignorance do. I am NOT into playing games of logomachy as these individuals are really playing with themselves and others who do not have the comprehension to understand that contradictions are not absolutes, but only have any real meaning in context or relation to another point of view.

Always one should ask when he/she hears the word 'contradiction' is what it is in relationship to as it has no real meaning standing alone.




OPPONENT BECOMES A PROPONENT FOR JESUS (YESHUA):



Let’s look at the case of Saul, who hated the followers of Jesus (Yeshua) so much that he journeyed to Damascus to harass all those calling on the name of Jesus’. But on the way a strange thing took place as recorded at Acts 9:1-9, “ But Saul, yet breathing threatening and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, 2 and asked of him letters to Damascus unto the synagogues, that if he found any that were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. 3 And as he journeyed, it came to pass that he drew nigh unto Damascus: and suddenly there shone round about him a light out of heaven: 4 and he fell upon the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And he [said], I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: 6 but rise, and enter into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. 7 And the men that journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing the voice, but beholding no man. 8 And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw nothing; and they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. 9 And he was three days without sight, and did neither eat nor drink.” (ASV).



Upon reaching Damascus, a transition of Saul from an opposer to that of a proponent took place as recorded at Acts 9:10-22, “ Now there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and the Lord said unto him in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I [am here], Lord. 11 And the Lord [said] unto him, Arise, and go to the street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one named Saul, a man of Tarsus: for behold, he prayeth; 12 and he hath seen a man named Ananias coming in, and laying his hands on him, that he might receive his sight. 13 But Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard from many of this man, how much evil he did to thy saints at Jerusalem: 14 and here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call upon thy name. 15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles and kings, and the children of Israel: 16 for I will show him how many things he must suffer for my name's sake. 17 And Ananias departed, and entered into the house; and laying his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, [even] Jesus, who appeared unto thee in the way which thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mayest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Spirit. 18 And straightway there fell from his eyes as it were scales, and he received his sight; and he arose and was baptized; 19 and he took food and was strengthened. And he was certain days with the disciples that were at Damascus. 20 And straightway in the synagogues he proclaimed Jesus, that he is the Son of God. 21 And all that heard him were amazed, and said, Is not this he that in Jerusalem made havoc of them that called on this name? and he had come hither for this intent, that he might bring them bound before the chief priests. 22 But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews that dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is the Christ.” (ASV).



However, modern skeptics and critics offer scenarios in an attempt to rationalize their none acceptance of fact and reality such as saying what happened to him was perhaps delirium, hallucination, a drastic psychological crisis, or something else provoked the qualms of Saul’s tormented conscience causing a nervous breakdown and/or he had a predisposition to epilepsy. All this in an attempt to rationalize away the facts.



So despite what skeptics and critics say, Saul turned from being an opposer to becoming a follower of Jesus (Yeshua) and became known as the Apostle Paul. As the scripture says at Acts 9:22, “ But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews that dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is the Christ.” (ASV).



CONCLUSION:



There will always be skeptics and critics who will try to rationalize away or claim contradictions for everything is the Bible, but this rationalization in no way changes the facts. And as can be seen from the foregoing, claimed contradictions amount to nothing as they merely indicate that there is a contradiction between one’s narrow or personal agenda and the truth of God’s (YHWH’s) word which is nothing but a SO WHAT!



Your Friend in Christ Iris89
 

Darkness

Psychoanalyst/Marxist
I am a skeptic. Before we burn the skeptic, I want to say that I was once a Follower of Christ and left because I found no firm foundation within the teachings Without getting into a debate I want to put forth an idea.

Many of the problems I find in the Bible are better described as inconsistencies rather than contradictions. To use an example of the way Judas supposedly died. Matthew tells us he hanged himself.

Matthew 27:5 (King James Version)
And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

Pauls tells us:



Act 1:18 (King James Version)
Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

This is not truly a contradiction, yet it is inconsistent. In Acts it is implied that Judas died by bursting asunder.

The largest contradiction I find in the Scriptures is this:

1 John 4:8 (King James Version)
He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

Revelation 20:10 (King James Version)
And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

If God is Love, notice it does not say God is loving, then an eternal hell is a contradiction.

All of this has been a waste of my time, as I will never be able to convince a dedicated Christian that his book is flawed. Guess, all that matter is that I have tried.
 

Runlikethewind

Monk in Training
Darkness said:
Many of the problems I find in the Bible are better described as inconsistencies rather than contradictions. To use an example of the way Judas supposedly died. Matthew tells us he hanged himself.

The largest contradiction I find in the Scriptures is this:

1 John 4:8 (King James Version)
He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

Revelation 20:10 (King James Version)
And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

If God is Love, notice it does not say God is loving, then an eternal hell is a contradiction.

As a dedicated Christian I agree with you that it is better to call them inconsistencies rather than contradictions. I also agree with Iris89 that many people try to rationalize and interpret the bible in such a way that it becomes nonsense. The contradiction, If God is love then hell is a contradiction, that you pointed out is a case, I think, of misunderstanding and not say two different things. If God is love and someone does not wish or desire to be loved, if they are so closed off and hardened of heart that the despise love, then God's love will seem to them as a lake of fire. Which is to say that God doesn't send anyone to hell, people or angels go their freely because they perceive or experience the love of God as fire because of their own hate. In any case many of the apparent contradictions/inconsistencies can be overcome by a proper understanding of the book.

A proper understanding of the book, in my opinion, requires one to recognize that it is an inspired document and not dictated. Therefore it is flawed, and I say that as a dedicated Christian, in the sense of the human element but it is not flawed in the message that God conveys through it. One must also interpret the scriptures in light of the context they where written, this cannot be ignored. These books where written thousands of years ago in different times and languages and under different world views by different people to other different people for various reasons and in a variety of forms. All this must be taken into account in order to come up with a good understanding of the bible. Allot of people on both sides fail to recognize this. Some read that God created the world in six days and they believe it literally. Others read the same thing and understanding it as supposing to be literal and so they reject the whole bible out of hand. Both views result from a failure to properly understand the message God is attempting to communicate by getting tied up in the human element of it, which I have said is the part that may have some flaws.
 

love

tri-polar optimist
If one reads The Word and seeks understanding of what truths lie within the so called "contradictions" of such things as how Judas died become irrelavent and only distract from the true message. Even with today's technology with instant global communications you can get different versions of events. I believe Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John described Jesus Christ's message very well and the message is God loves us and knows our shortcomings and if anyone goes to hell it is their choice, as stated above, because of their hate and hardness of heart.
 

s2a

Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
iris89 said:
Skeptics Always Search For Scenarios to Deny the Facts:
As this claim is unfounded, unsupported, and just plain dumb...I won't bother with a specific rebuttal to this leading premise.

I would inquire of iris89 as to which version/translation of "The Bible" he (or she--sorry; you don't bother to identify your gender in your RF profile) references as the "definitive" edition of Scripture to be regarded as the "inerrent" and totally unexpurgated/unedited version of "God's Word".

Perhaps if were were all reading from the same (and only certifiably "true") inerrant version/translation of Scripture, there would be no further instances of "conflict", or "questionable" inaccuracies from which those opportunistic skeptics might seek to illustrate their doubts and "denials" of BIBLICAL FACT.

I hope that amongst my numerous Biblical versions/translations resident upon my bookshelf (now 14, and counting) that I already possess the one and only true testament of God's revealed Word and Will...but if not, I'll be sure to procure iris89's "certified/endorsed" version as soon as possible.
 

may

Well-Known Member
s2a said:
I hope that amongst my numerous Biblical versions/translations resident upon my bookshelf (now 14, and counting) that I already possess the one and only true testament of God's revealed Word and Will...but if not, I'll be sure to procure iris89's "certified/endorsed" version as soon as possible.
if you are after a very good accurate translation you can go no better than this online bible , dont be misled to believe that this translation is not a good translation . it is very good and the true knowledge has certainly become abundant in these the last days. New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
No matter what our circumstances, the Bible contains the direction and counsel that we need. Read it daily.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Without skepticism, we human beings become quite insane. Without skepticism, we will believe anything anyone tells us is true, including whatever our own imaginations can invent. Skepticism is an indispensable part of human nature, and without it we could not even begin to determine what is real and true, from what is not.

So the negation of skepticism is the negation of truth, and the negation of sanity. Only fools and lunatics believe propositions of truth without doubt.
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
iris89 said:
Skeptics and critics of the Bible are always trying to come up with scenarios and off-beat reasoning to deny Bible facts.

Well, let me put it this way...

You have two sources about what God did: the Bible, which was written by the hand of man, and god's work - the universe itself.

Now, tell me, which do you think is going to better reflect God's work? The book telling the story, or the work itself?

So isn't it better to base your knowledge of God off the world and the universe instead of the Bible? And when reality says one thing and the bible says another, which are you going to believe? The Bible, or God's actual work? Which is closer to God?

You see the Bible as the word of God, but face it - it was written by man. God inspired, maybe. But you have to face the fact that the words were couched in metaphor to begin with, and they've been translated and retranslated through the ages. But you also have another source to learn of your God - the world outside. And unlike the Bible, it hasn't had its meaning distorted through centuries of translations, or through metaphors which don't apply to modern society. It was made by God's own hand. Don't dismiss that in favour of the interpretation of man. let God's work speak for itself.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Tiberius said:
Well, let me put it this way...

You have two sources about what God did: the Bible, which was written by the hand of man, and god's work - the universe itself.

Now, tell me, which do you think is going to better reflect God's work? The book telling the story, or the work itself?

So isn't it better to base your knowledge of God off the world and the universe instead of the Bible? And when reality says one thing and the bible says another, which are you going to believe? The Bible, or God's actual work? Which is closer to God?

You see the Bible as the word of God, but face it - it was written by man. God inspired, maybe. But you have to face the fact that the words were couched in metaphor to begin with, and they've been translated and retranslated through the ages. But you also have another source to learn of your God - the world outside. And unlike the Bible, it hasn't had its meaning distorted through centuries of translations, or through metaphors which don't apply to modern society. It was made by God's own hand. Don't dismiss that in favour of the interpretation of man. let God's work speak for itself.

That sounds like an extraordinarilly contradiction of the fact that you cite yourself as an atheist.

As it happens, I agree with the entire content of your post. Fruballs!:)
 

FatMan

Well-Known Member
When someone offers up examples of people being skeptical by denying the "facts" of the Bible, I tend not to give any further credence to their arguments. There is very little in any old religious manuscript that is "factual", in that not much has definitive proof.

As a skeptic, I would say thousands of years and a lot of people's time and lives have been wasted trying to figure out what happened in early man's day and living in fear of what is unknown rather than just trying to live their current lives and what is known to the best they can.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
FatMan said:
As a skeptic, I would say thousands of years and a lot of people's time and lives have been wasted trying to figure out what happened in early man's day and living in fear of what is unknown rather than just trying to live their current lives and what is known to the best they can.

I can understand that, but then you are not making allowances for one of our (humans) best traits, which is "curiosity" - trying to prove "such and such" - it is just a part of our nature.
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
michel said:
That sounds like an extraordinarilly contradiction of the fact that you cite yourself as an atheist.

As it happens, I agree with the entire content of your post. Fruballs!:)

Thanks. But I'm not here to try to deconvert people. If a person is a believer, that's fine, I don't have a problem with that. but if a person believes in God, yet doesn't consider the world - what they should consider as God's own work - as authoritative, then I think they're mistaken. How can a believer deny God's work?
 

Runlikethewind

Monk in Training
Tiberius said:
Well, let me put it this way...

You have two sources about what God did: the Bible, which was written by the hand of man, and god's work - the universe itself.

Now, tell me, which do you think is going to better reflect God's work? The book telling the story, or the work itself?

So isn't it better to base your knowledge of God off the world and the universe instead of the Bible? And when reality says one thing and the bible says another, which are you going to believe? The Bible, or God's actual work? Which is closer to God?

You see the Bible as the word of God, but face it - it was written by man. God inspired, maybe. But you have to face the fact that the words were couched in metaphor to begin with, and they've been translated and retranslated through the ages. But you also have another source to learn of your God - the world outside. And unlike the Bible, it hasn't had its meaning distorted through centuries of translations, or through metaphors which don't apply to modern society. It was made by God's own hand. Don't dismiss that in favour of the interpretation of man. let God's work speak for itself.

I agree, well said. Although I would say that human understnding/conceptuilization of the world has changed overtime and the scientific theories which have been developed over time to describe it are akin to an interpretation of the world which sometimes uses analogies and maybe even metaphores from time to time to describe it. The atomic theory of matter at one point look at atoms as analogous to solar systems with th nucleus at the center and the electrons orbiting like planets, this interpretation of nature has changed as knowledge grows and now there are some who say there are no particles atoms are all made up of strings...But that is how the human mind works in understanding things, we have to interpret everything that's how our minds work.
 

FatMan

Well-Known Member
michel said:
I can understand that, but then you are not making allowances for one of our (humans) best traits, which is "curiosity" - trying to prove "such and such" - it is just a part of our nature.

This is true, but to be curious, one has to also be open to other thoughts, a trait that most people who cling to "facts" from the Bible seem to lack.

I don't mind people theorizing about what happened in biblical times - what I oppose are those who accept and present what is depicted as being the complete and utter truth.

I'm all for trying to find truths out about the bible. I'm not sure those who claim they know what the Bible already means is with me in that search.
 
Top