Thales of Ga.
Skeptic Griggsy
puckettt, and others can find other interpretations for that blarney!
-
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!
What's so impressive about the Bible?
- Thread starter jmvizanko
- Start date
gnomon
Well-Known Member
Okay fine. Only I care about this.
It's Richard Dawkins. That's right. The big evil atheist strongly supports teaching the Bible as literature and duly recognizes it's importance in Western civilization.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
i dont find those 20 reasons, reasonable. And to be honest, i just dont think it will be worth devoting as much time as it would take to give a reply to each one. :sleep:
jmvizanko
Uber Tool
Apparently you didn't even click the link. I was pointing out 4 biblical contradictions. I wasn't referencing the entire rant.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
The fact is that there are numerous contradictions in the Bible.
Denying that they even exist shows a lack of honest study.
dmgdnooc
Active Member
Honesty is lacking.
　
'... God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man (with evil).'
The (with evil) of the last clause is ommitted being an elliptical construction in relation to the preceding clause.
This device of language is widely used in every day speech and writing.
eg John can play the guitar; Mary can too. ie Mary can (play the guitar) too.
　
'... I will not keep mine anger forever (towards Israel).'
'(Judah) .... has kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn for ever.'
Context demands that 2 angers are being mentioned in these 2 verses and there is no valid reason to conflate the 2 different angers.
　
'If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.'
Next verse. 'There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.
Because. 'It is written in the law, that the testimony of two men is true.'
Next verse.
'I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.'
IMO, these passages can only be made to contradict each other by a malicious, selective and partial quoting: similar to what Mr Bufe has done.
　
'... for I have seen (an angel of) God face to face, and my life is preserved.'
Clearly an angel of God because Jacob wrestled with a personage who appeared as a 'man'.
　
'No man hath seen God (YHWH) at any time.'
Clearly YHWH, the Father of vs 14.
　
'And I (YHWH) will take away mine hand and thou shalt see my back parts; but my face shall not be seen.'
Clearly John is referring to the last part of this verse (the part that was ommitted from Mr Bufe's selective quote).
　
C'mon, really, imo, these examples of so called contradictions could only appeal to those whose knowledge of the Bible is limited to what had been revealed by a google of 'contradictions in the bible'.
Further they would have neglected to check the quotes and contexts and have the barest of minimal understanding of the devices of language as used in English speech and texts.
　
It really is little wonder that these sorts of things are dismissed out of hand by so many Christians.
They are just so transparently manufactured for contention.
And of course there is the question of how any ideas more complex than yummy and yucky could be conveyed to persons so obviously lacking in language skills that they suppose an equivalence in meaning between Hebrew, Greek and English words.
Hell, the meaning of the English word has changed since its 1611 printing and applying the 21st century meaning of that word to its 17th century counterpart is loaded with enough traps and slippery slopes without extending the ignorance to the Greek and Hebrew as well.
　
Maybe gnomon's advice should be taken to heart. Read the Bible for its literary value, at the very least it can be hoped that something of the uses of language will filter through.
　
　
'... God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man (with evil).'
The (with evil) of the last clause is ommitted being an elliptical construction in relation to the preceding clause.
This device of language is widely used in every day speech and writing.
eg John can play the guitar; Mary can too. ie Mary can (play the guitar) too.
　
'... I will not keep mine anger forever (towards Israel).'
'(Judah) .... has kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn for ever.'
Context demands that 2 angers are being mentioned in these 2 verses and there is no valid reason to conflate the 2 different angers.
　
'If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.'
Next verse. 'There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.
Because. 'It is written in the law, that the testimony of two men is true.'
Next verse.
'I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.'
IMO, these passages can only be made to contradict each other by a malicious, selective and partial quoting: similar to what Mr Bufe has done.
　
'... for I have seen (an angel of) God face to face, and my life is preserved.'
Clearly an angel of God because Jacob wrestled with a personage who appeared as a 'man'.
　
'No man hath seen God (YHWH) at any time.'
Clearly YHWH, the Father of vs 14.
　
'And I (YHWH) will take away mine hand and thou shalt see my back parts; but my face shall not be seen.'
Clearly John is referring to the last part of this verse (the part that was ommitted from Mr Bufe's selective quote).
　
C'mon, really, imo, these examples of so called contradictions could only appeal to those whose knowledge of the Bible is limited to what had been revealed by a google of 'contradictions in the bible'.
Further they would have neglected to check the quotes and contexts and have the barest of minimal understanding of the devices of language as used in English speech and texts.
　
It really is little wonder that these sorts of things are dismissed out of hand by so many Christians.
They are just so transparently manufactured for contention.
And of course there is the question of how any ideas more complex than yummy and yucky could be conveyed to persons so obviously lacking in language skills that they suppose an equivalence in meaning between Hebrew, Greek and English words.
Hell, the meaning of the English word has changed since its 1611 printing and applying the 21st century meaning of that word to its 17th century counterpart is loaded with enough traps and slippery slopes without extending the ignorance to the Greek and Hebrew as well.
　
Maybe gnomon's advice should be taken to heart. Read the Bible for its literary value, at the very least it can be hoped that something of the uses of language will filter through.