PDA

View Full Version : Apparent Biblical Discrepancies.



bob b
March 9th, 2006, 09:00 AM
This is a thread for skeptics to get things about the Bible "off their chests".

Let's stick with the major items to get started.

We start with Jukia and his aversion to a young Earth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jukia

Jukia said: "You can start with a 6 to 10000 year old earth. I know, I know, time dilation and all that other nonsense you like to spout but the earth is clearly much much older than 6-10000 years. And before anyone demands that I "prove it" I will give my standard response "Learn some science".

To which I replied:

You believe that the Earth is old because of two things, that is what you have been taught and that is what "everybody says".

These were the same two reasons that for some 2000 years people believed that the Sun and stars revolved about a stationary Earth.

But then a few people discovered some "new science", and the rest is history.

Einstein discovered relativity almost a hundred years ago, but there are still some who disbelieve.

Jukia
March 9th, 2006, 09:25 AM
And I posted:
People believed the sun and stars revolved around the earth until technology allowed people to discern the true facts. People believed the earth to be young (well at least those who read the Bible literally) until technology allowed people to discern the true facts.
Get a life bob b.

fool
March 9th, 2006, 09:28 AM
Why do YECs use a range 6000-10000 ?
Seems it should be exact if ya got a book tellin it from the start.

Jukia
March 9th, 2006, 09:30 AM
Why do YECs use a range 6000-10000 ?
Seems it should be exact if ya got a book tellin it from the start.
I think Bishop Ussher's calculations give an exact #, perhaps to the exact date and time, although I am not sure there has been any adjustment for changes between Julian and Gregorian calendar, but I forget the exact #. I am sure someone on this board can help with that.

Aimiel
March 9th, 2006, 09:38 AM
Creation: October 23, 4004 B.C., at nine o'clock in the morning, according to Ussher.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:5th_millennium_BC

bob b
March 9th, 2006, 09:45 AM
Why do YECs use a range 6000-10000 ?
Seems it should be exact if ya got a book tellin it from the start.

Several reasons, starting with the fact that there are multiple sources for the ancient text.

The LXX source differs from our usual KJV in the pre-flood geneologies. Obviously there were copying errors because the time spans are off in many cases by exactly 100 years, yielding a total difference in the LXX of about a thousand years (longer).

Other people claim that there is no difference between son and grandson in Hebrew, meaning that it would be possible for missing generations. I personally doubt this myself: the text seems to be written in a manner designed to defeat misinterpretations like that.

At any rate people feel that by allowing a suitable range they have covered all of the above possibilities.

eisenreich
March 9th, 2006, 09:45 AM
If the universe is young and it takes millions of years for light to get to us from many stars, how can we see them? Did God create light in transit? Was the speed of light faster in the past?


You believe that the Earth is old because of two things, that is what you have been taught and that is what "everybody says".
If modern dating methods are completely wrong, why do Christians immediately run to C-14 dating when a Christian artifact is found?

bob b
March 9th, 2006, 09:56 AM
And I posted:
People believed the sun and stars revolved around the earth until technology allowed people to discern the true facts. People believed the earth to be young (well at least those who read the Bible literally) until technology allowed people to discern the true facts.
Get a life bob b.

You are correct that technological advancements do lead to better knowledge. This is precisely why the laboratory experiments to determine the rarily of "good proteins" are so important in the debate over macroevolution.

But as far as verifying the dates obtained by measuring radioactive decay products, the dispute is not over the laboratory measurements themselves, but instead is over the assumptions which are used to convert the measurements into estimated dates when the rocks were first formed. If the assumptions are wrong then the dates obtained from the calculations would be necessarily wrong as well. Unfortunately there is no completely independent manner in which to "calibrate" or validate the assumptions, except in the case of C-14, where counting tree rings does this job.

Aimiel
March 9th, 2006, 09:57 AM
If the universe is young and it takes millions of years for light to get to us from many stars, how can we see them? Did God create light in transit? Is it too much of a 'stretch' to believe that The One Who created everything out of nothing would have enough sense to know the speed of light, and create stars along with their 'visible' light so that they could be observed instantly, upon thier creation, even though they are so distant?

Jukia
March 9th, 2006, 09:59 AM
Is it too much of a 'stretch' to believe that The One Who created everything out of nothing would have enough sense to know the speed of light, and create stars along with their 'visible' light so that they could be observed instantly, upon thier creation, even though they are so distant?

No, but it means that He set the whole system up to confuse us.

Aimiel
March 9th, 2006, 10:24 AM
No, but it means that He set the whole system up to confuse us.He obviously doesn't want anyone to be able to prove or dis-prove His existance. If His design were confusion, the laws of physics might be set on a timer to change, ever so slightly, at random; or perhaps worse.

Jukia
March 9th, 2006, 10:26 AM
He obviously doesn't want anyone to be able to prove or dis-prove His existance. If His design were confusion, the laws of physics might be set on a timer to change, ever so slightly, at random; or perhaps worse.

Are you serious or am I just missing the satire or humor?

fool
March 9th, 2006, 10:36 AM
Is it too much of a 'stretch' to believe that The One Who created everything out of nothing would have enough sense to know the speed of light, and create stars along with their 'visible' light so that they could be observed instantly, upon thier creation, even though they are so distant?
So he created it with the appearence of great age?
Why would he do such a thing?

bob b
March 9th, 2006, 10:40 AM
If the universe is young and it takes millions of years for light to get to us from many stars, how can we see them? Did God create light in transit? Was the speed of light faster in the past?

It was not that the speed of light was faster, it was that the universe was expanded to its present size within a short time (possibly 2 picoseconds). Any first light waves would then have been expanded along with it, in a sense expanding the light "in transit" and allowing it to be seen immediately on the Earth, thus solving the "light in transit" problem automatically. God apparently works with His laws, not against them.


If modern dating methods are completely wrong, why do Christians immediately run to C-14 dating when a Christian artifact is found?

They are not "completely wrong". C-14 has been verified by tree ring dating back at least to the time of the flood, for the oldest living tree (when cut down) dated almost precisely to when the Bible said the Flood ended. I find this "coincidence" fascinating.

Apologist
March 9th, 2006, 10:41 AM
You believe that the Earth is old because of two things, that is what you have been taught and that is what "everybody says".

Carbon dating and archeological findings, whether or not they prove the existence of a multi million/billion year old earth, at least prove the existence of stuff that existed WAAAY more than 10 thousand years. The evidence has been given time and time again through archeology and earth science for an extremely old earth. The burden of proof has been satisfied on the part of the scientists and the archeologists. I have yet to see any proof given of a young earth.

Aimiel
March 9th, 2006, 10:56 AM
So he created it with the appearence of great age? Why would he do such a thing?I don't believe the earth displays 'great age' like most of today's 'scientists' would postulate. Their basic science behind the meaning of C-14 dating is too flawed. The sheer foolishness of accepting evolution as scientific without any real proof is proof enough to me of their lack of scientific abilities.

allsmiles
March 9th, 2006, 11:05 AM
I don't believe the earth displays 'great age' like most of today's 'scientists' would postulate. Their basic science behind the meaning of C-14 dating is too flawed. The sheer foolishness of accepting evolution as scientific without any real proof is proof enough to me of their lack of scientific abilities.

he's talking about the light traveling from distant stars to earth, light that would perhaps take 100,000 years to arrive here, perhaps even after the star has already died. why would your god have created it to appear old when it really isn't? to trip us up? we do have to remember that we're dealing with a god who was alarmed at the idea of a ziggurat reaching his abode in the clouds.

Jukia
March 9th, 2006, 11:12 AM
I don't believe the earth displays 'great age' like most of today's 'scientists' would postulate. Their basic science behind the meaning of C-14 dating is too flawed. The sheer foolishness of accepting evolution as scientific without any real proof is proof enough to me of their lack of scientific abilities.

Uh huh, and your belief is no doubt based on some training of substance in physics or geology.

Aimiel
March 9th, 2006, 11:16 AM
he's talking about the light traveling from distant stars to earth, light that would perhaps take 100,000 years to arrive here, perhaps even after the star has already died. why would your god have created it to appear old when it really isn't? to trip us up? we do have to remember that we're dealing with a god who was alarmed at the idea of a ziggurat reaching his abode in the clouds.Light would take just a little over four years to reach here from the nearest star, if God had not created the stars with their 'visible' light at the same time. He didn't do this to 'trip' anyone, but so that they wouldn't trip, for instance when going to the woods to relieve themselves (the stars provide more than enough light to see where you're going, and to keep from tripping over an obstacle). And, He wasn't worried about His Creation 'reaching' anything, He just has to keep out the riff-raff. His Home isn't defiled, and He can't allow sin into His Presence.

fool
March 9th, 2006, 11:17 AM
It was not that the speed of light was faster, it was that the universe was expanded to its present size within a short time (possibly 2 picoseconds). Any first light waves would then have been expanded along with it, in a sense expanding the light "in transit" and allowing it to be seen immediately on the Earth, thus solving the "light in transit" problem automatically. God apparently works with His laws, not against them.
Wow, this is getting really old, once again:
For your scheme to work the galaxies would have to have been in their present form prior to the expansion in order to leave a light trail that shows them in their present form, second if you had a miniuture universe, and them expanded it, you'd red-shift your light so far to cover the billions of years of distance that you wouldn't even see them.
I think it would be best if you stopped trying to find rational explainations for the light shift problem and fall back on the "God did it" formula.



They are not "completely wrong". C-14 has been verified by tree ring dating back at least to the time of the flood, for the oldest living tree (when cut down) dated almost precisely to when the Bible said the Flood ended. I find this "coincidence" fascinating.
Bob, we just did this, if you take the rings of modern trees and corospond them with older dead one you can build a sequence back much farther than 6000 yrs.
And as far a your pine tree goes, that's old news, they got a 12000 yr old bush that's all the rage now.
http://waynesword.palomar.edu/ww0601.htm#oldest

Granite
March 9th, 2006, 11:18 AM
Interesting that creationism has remained on the fringe for so long.

Aimiel
March 9th, 2006, 11:21 AM
Uh huh, and your belief is no doubt based on some training of substance in physics or geology.No, but I've read articles by several who are rather authoritative on the subject who have significantly more 'training' than I, and simply don't swallow whatever I'm fed by textbooks. It's your condescending attitude that makes me wonder about your training and discipline.

allsmiles
March 9th, 2006, 11:22 AM
Light would take just a little over four years to reach here from the nearest star, if God had not created the stars with their 'visible' light at the same time. He didn't do this to 'trip' anyone, but so that they wouldn't trip, for instance when going to the woods to relieve themselves (the stars provide more than enough light to see where you're going, and to keep from tripping over an obstacle). And, He wasn't worried about His Creation 'reaching' anything, He just has to keep out the riff-raff. His Home isn't defiled, and He can't allow sin into His Presence.

:chuckle:

your array of lousy answers will never cease to get a knee slap out of me Aimiel.

allsmiles
March 9th, 2006, 11:23 AM
No, but I've read articles by several who are rather authoritative on the subject who have significantly more 'training' than I, and simply don't swallow whatever I'm fed by textbooks. It's your condescending attitude that makes me wonder about your training and discipline.

the "several" you refer to with better training were fed something themselves, so what makes them any better than any other expert who has an educated position on this?

Apologist
March 9th, 2006, 11:23 AM
Prophesy for us, Aimiel. What sort of beverage am i drinking?

Granite
March 9th, 2006, 11:24 AM
Seriously, Aimiel sounds totally ignorant of very basic science.

allsmiles
March 9th, 2006, 11:26 AM
so does Yahweh in Genesis when he becomes afraid of the tower of babel reaching his heavenly abode.

Aimiel
March 9th, 2006, 11:33 AM
Prophesy for us, Aimiel. What sort of beverage am i drinking?A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas.

Granite
March 9th, 2006, 11:33 AM
Speaking of contradictions...

How did Saul die?

Apologist
March 9th, 2006, 11:34 AM
A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas.

How convenient. I am calling you on an argument from silence.

allsmiles
March 9th, 2006, 11:43 AM
1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As men moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.

3 They said to each other, "Come, let's make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, "Come, [B]let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth."

5 But the LORD came down (?) to see the city and the tower that the men were building. 6 The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."

:rotfl:

Granite
March 9th, 2006, 11:46 AM
I always got a chuckle out of imagining Jehovah was a mogul who fired his construction crew before they could unionize.

Jukia
March 9th, 2006, 11:50 AM
I always got a chuckle out of imagining Jehovah was a mogul who fired his construction crew before they could unionize.
Uh oh, I hope you like it nice and warm.

eisenreich
March 9th, 2006, 11:52 AM
6 The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."
So if Esperanto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto) caught on, we'd finally be able to build a tower tall enough that it reaches heaven, therefore toppling God? Worth a shot.

Granite
March 9th, 2006, 11:55 AM
Uh oh, I hope you like it nice and warm.

:shut:

:chuckle:

:devil:

Jukia
March 9th, 2006, 11:57 AM
No, but I've read articles by several who are rather authoritative on the subject who have significantly more 'training' than I, and simply don't swallow whatever I'm fed by textbooks. It's your condescending attitude that makes me wonder about your training and discipline.

Ah yes, you don't swallow what you are fed in textbooks, which are usually written or contributed to by those with significant training but you do swallow what you read in articles. Got it.

Sorry if I sound condescending, don't really mean to. But perhaps it comes from a BA and MS in biology.

Letsargue
March 9th, 2006, 11:58 AM
Is it too much of a 'stretch' to believe that The One Who created everything out of nothing would have enough sense to know the speed of light, and create stars along with their 'visible' light so that they could be observed instantly, upon thier creation, even though they are so distant?

---Did he not create all things according to the Law of science, what ever science says it should be, that is the way it was created.
*
-----------------Paul---
*

allsmiles
March 9th, 2006, 11:58 AM
what, no christian response? come on guys, it's funny! :chuckle:

Granite
March 9th, 2006, 11:58 AM
So if Esperanto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto) caught on, we'd finally be able to build a tower tall enough that it reaches heaven, therefore toppling God? Worth a shot.

How about Basic English instead?

Letsargue
March 9th, 2006, 12:03 PM
So if Esperanto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto) caught on, we'd finally be able to build a tower tall enough that it reaches heaven, therefore toppling God? Worth a shot.

---No, the attempting to build a tower to Heaven is foolish, God just stoped them from being Foolish. God is not that stupid, man is.
*
----------------Paul---
*

allsmiles
March 9th, 2006, 12:04 PM
how about the fact that god doesn't live just above the clouds like the author of Genesis surmised? seems that their god is only as knowledgeable as the people portraying him.

Jukia
March 9th, 2006, 12:08 PM
---No, the attempting to build a tower to Heaven is foolish, God just stoped them from being Foolish. God is not that stupid, man is.
*
----------------Paul---
*

But did He then "confuse their language"?

allsmiles
March 9th, 2006, 12:09 PM
doesn't sound like they were being very foolish to me, according to your god's own admission, nothing they would plan to do would be impossible for them, including building a tower into heaven.

Granite
March 9th, 2006, 12:13 PM
Exactly--building a tower would have worked!

What exactly was Jehovah and his company afraid of?

allsmiles
March 9th, 2006, 12:18 PM
think of it, they were of one language, one purpose, one goal and even according to the supreme deity of the entire universe, the accomplishment of that goal was well within their grasp.

so what did he do? he confused their language and scattered them abroad. how productive, how efficient, how competent!!!

i think the best biblical discrepancies are the ones that we can find when we measure the message of the bible against reality. that's when the contradictions start to pile up i think.

i'll try to come up with some good examples.

bob b
March 9th, 2006, 12:59 PM
Wow, this is getting really old, once again:
For your scheme to work the galaxies would have to have been in their present form prior to the expansion in order to leave a light trail that shows them in their present form, second if you had a miniuture universe, and them expanded it, you'd red-shift your light so far to cover the billions of years of distance that you wouldn't even see them.

Since the amount of expansion is the same regardless of how long the expansion took, the Big Bang expansion would give the same red-shift as the 2 picosecond case.


Bob, we just did this, if you take the rings of modern trees and corospond them with older dead one you can build a sequence back much farther than 6000 yrs.

People have tried to do this, but it is difficult and relies on averaging the ring width, which of course varies around the circumference of the tree as well as tree to tree. Thus the "matching" technique is inherently more subjective and hence less reliable than simply counting the rings from a single tree.


And as far a your pine tree goes, that's old news, they got a 12000 yr old bush that's all the rage now.

The 12000 year age is an estimate, not obtained by counting tree rings. Estimates like this are frequently found to be off by as much as a factor of 10 for they rely on the uniformitarian principle (past conditions were the same as today's conditions).

-------
Comment on the Tower of Babel.

1) God would certainly be smart enough to know of the danger of a single, all-powerful totalitarian government, not led by God-fearing men utilizing Godly principles.

2) Also, linguists know that all languages are not descended from a single primitive language.

hatsoff
March 9th, 2006, 07:05 PM
The problem with reconciling Biblical contradictions is that it often requires the presupposition of inerrancy. Such apologetics are not explanations, because they irrationally ignore better, more logical explanations--that is, that the texts are in some way erroneous. There is perhaps no better example of this than one of the greatest theological issues confounding Christians: salvation by faith alone, or by faith and works together?

Unfortunately, the Bible presents two altogether different arguments. Paul tells us that we cannot work our way to Heaven, while James assures us we must do good works or face damnation. And so apologists go to work reconciling this "apparent contradiction," with the unwavering belief that God's Word does not conflict with itself. They almost always fail to accept the most obvious conclusion: One or both authors were mistaken.

Let me give you a modern-day example of this sort of presuppositional reasoning. Let's say two members from this board claim to have witnessed Joe Schmoe's death. Each of us gives an account. Here's mine...

Joe had a heart attack, and died before the paramedics could arrive.

But then another guy posts about the same Joe Schmoe, and gives the following story:

Joe lost control of his car, crashed it into a ditch and was thrown through his windshield and onto the ground. The paramedics did all they could, but he died anyway.

These are two obviously contradictory accounts, and most readers would assume one or both of us were lying. An inerrancy presuppositionalist, however, would harmonize the two accounts as best they could, probably coming up with something like this...

Joe had a heart attack while he was driving his car. The pain caused him to lose control and crash into a ditch, at which point he was thrown through the windshield and onto the ground. He died there, before the paramedics arrived; but the paramedics nevertheless tried and failed to resuscitate him.

This is of course a ridiculous explanation, but it is exactly the way a great many apologists treat Biblical contradictions.

bob b
March 9th, 2006, 08:10 PM
The problem with reconciling Biblical contradictions is that it often requires the presupposition of inerrancy. Such apologetics are not explanations, because they irrationally ignore better, more logical explanations--that is, that the texts are in some way erroneous. There is perhaps no better example of this than one of the greatest theological issues confounding Christians: salvation by faith alone, or by faith and works together?

Unfortunately, the Bible presents two altogether different arguments. Paul tells us that we cannot work our way to Heaven, while James assures us we must do good works or face damnation. And so apologists go to work reconciling this "apparent contradiction," with the unwavering belief that God's Word does not conflict with itself. They almost always fail to accept the most obvious conclusion: One or both authors were mistaken.

Let me give you a modern-day example of this sort of presuppositional reasoning. Let's say two members from this board claim to have witnessed Joe Schmoe's death. Each of us gives an account. Here's mine...

Joe had a heart attack, and died before the paramedics could arrive.

But then another guy posts about the same Joe Schmoe, and gives the following story:

Joe lost control of his car, crashed it into a ditch and was thrown through his windshield and onto the ground. The paramedics did all they could, but he died anyway.

These are two obviously contradictory accounts, and most readers would assume one or both of us were lying. An inerrancy presuppositionalist, however, would harmonize the two accounts as best they could, probably coming up with something like this...

Joe had a heart attack while he was driving his car. The pain caused him to lose control and crash into a ditch, at which point he was thrown through the windshield and onto the ground. He died there, before the paramedics arrived; but the paramedics nevertheless tried and failed to resuscitate him.

This is of course a ridiculous explanation, but it is exactly the way a great many apologists treat Biblical contradictions.

I would say that most believers here would have no interest whatsoever in your silly examples because they have already heard the detailed account prepared by Pastor Enyart that perfectly explains the "apparent" contradiction between the "works and faith" verses in scripture.

hatsoff
March 9th, 2006, 08:14 PM
It is possible to reconcile any Biblical contradiction... if you presuppose inerrancy. But that is not a logical supposition.

EDIT: By the way, you're right when you call those examples "silly." I often marvel anyone would believe such nonsense.

allsmiles
March 15th, 2006, 01:50 PM
oooh oooh!!!

:wave2:

i have another discrepancy!!!


John 21:1 Afterward Jesus appeared again to his disciples, by the Sea of Tiberias. it happened this way: 2 Simon Peter, Thomas (called Didymus), Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples were together. 3 "I'm going out to fish," Simon Peter told them, and they said, "We'll go with you." So they went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing.

4 Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus.

5 He called out to them, "Friends, haven't you any fish?"
"No," they answered.

6 He said, "Throw your net on the right side of the boat and you will find some." When they did, they were unable to haul the net in because of the large number of fish.

7 Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, "It is the Lord!" As soon as Simon Peter heard him say, "It is the Lord," he wrapped his outer garment around him (for he had taken it off) and jumped into the water. 8 The other disciples followed in the boat, towing the net full of fish, for they were not far from shore, about a hundred yards. 9 When they landed, they saw a fire of burning coals there with fish on it, and some bread.

10 Jesus said to them, "Bring some of the fish you have just caught."

11 Simon Peter climbed aboard and dragged the net ashore. It was full of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn.

and...


Luke 5:1 One day as Jesus was standing by the Lake of Gennesaret, with the people crowding around him and listening to the word of God, 2 he saw at the water's edge two boats, left there by the fishermen, who were washing their nets. 3 He got into one of the boats, the one belonging to Simon, and asked him to put out a little from shore. Then he sat down and taught the people from the boat.

4 When he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, "Put out into deep water, and let down the nets for a catch."

5 Simon answered, "Master, we've worked hard all night and haven't caught anything. But because you say so, I will let down the nets."

6 When they had done so, they caught such a large number of fish that [B]their nets began to break. 7 So they signaled their partners in the other boat to come and help them, and they came and filled both boats so full that they began to sink.

the two different authors place the same story at two completely different periods of Jesus' life, and then there's the little discrepany between the state of their fishing nets. one story has the nets break at the beginning of Jesus' career, the other story has the nets stay in tact after he resurrected.

what i'd like to know is, if these books were divinely inspired, what's with all of the little flaws like this one? does your god have a failing memory? what's the point of having the discrepancies if they aren't contradictions?

i might be picking peanuts outta poop here, the easy answer would be to say that they are two different stories, but they aren't. there's no allusion in John to an earlier, similar story, and there's nothing in Luke that i could find about a similar story occuring after Jesus' death. most if not all of the post-resurrection stories leading up to the ascension of Christ (and BTW, ascension only works if heaven is physically located in the sky) contradict one another.

thank you!

:)

bob b
March 15th, 2006, 02:24 PM
what i'd like to know is, if these books were divinely inspired, what's with all of the little flaws like this one?

And therein lies the problem. Like the Greeks before them the skeptics argue that because God is "perfect" that "divinely inspired" must mean that God guides the pen of the writer so that tiny insignificant errors would be impossible.

But God may not (as God's answer to Paul implied) desire perfection but only require that his message be sufficient.

In fact in other verses God has inspired men to write that "He will confound the wisdom of the wise".

Wiseguys of course are always easily duped. Seems to be a law of nature.

allsmiles
March 15th, 2006, 02:29 PM
so is the indiscrepancy evidence of divine inspiration?

and this isn't a little flaw, this is a massive discrepancy between geography and chronology.

Jukia
March 15th, 2006, 02:33 PM
Or perhaps it is all part of God's plan to deceive/confuse us. If that be the case, it simply makes no sense for God to do that.

bob b
March 15th, 2006, 02:33 PM
so is the indiscrepancy evidence of divine inspiration?

and this isn't a little flaw, this is a massive discrepancy between geography and chronology.

Since the purpose of the passages was not geographical or chronological it would be natural that the skeptic would concentrate on the wrong things and hence miss the message to be conveyed.

Such is human nature.

allsmiles
March 15th, 2006, 02:37 PM
Since the purpose of the passages was not geographical or chronological it would be natural that the skeptic would concentrate on the wrong things and hence miss the message to be conveyed.

Such is human nature.

then maybe you could convey the true message of your god in this story about fishing to me. and yes, as a skeptic i do concentrate on "wrong things". the wrong things in this story are time and place, which are fairly critical.

to say that geographic and chronological contradictions are not significant is ignorant Bob.

allsmiles
March 15th, 2006, 02:52 PM
and if chronological and geographic indescrepancies aren't significant then the gospels are worthless as an accurate account of Jesus' life. isn't he supposed to be an historical figure? you would most certainly claim that he was while at the same time discarding evidence that would be used to either call his historicity into question or to support it.

if all that is important is the message of Jesus, then why would his historicity be important at all? Paul had no knowledge of Jesus as an earthly being yet you rely on his theology for the conveyance of Christ's true message, a message that requires no historical validity to embrace.

hatsoff
March 16th, 2006, 10:43 AM
And therein lies the problem. Like the Greeks before them the skeptics argue that because God is "perfect" that "divinely inspired" must mean that God guides the pen of the writer so that tiny insignificant errors would be impossible.

But God may not (as God's answer to Paul implied) desire perfection but only require that his message be sufficient.

In fact in other verses God has inspired men to write that "He will confound the wisdom of the wise".

Wiseguys of course are always easily duped. Seems to be a law of nature.

So you're saying that there are contradictions in the Bible, but that they don't matter in the grand scheme of things?

bob b
March 16th, 2006, 10:59 AM
So you're saying that there are contradictions in the Bible, but that they don't matter in the grand scheme of things?

I have in the past examined literally hundreds of apparent biblical discrepancies. I have books in my library that present logical explanations of hundreds more.

Philosophically some discrepancies could exist that don't have a reasonable explanation, even though I have never found one. But after examining so many and finding nothing very substantial I tired of this unproductive chore. So I usually leave it to others who do not seem to realize that no amount of effort in this area will ever dissuade a person determined to disbelieve. They would just shift to another case.

I once conversed will a skeptic who collects lists of apparent discrepancies. I mentioned to him that I knew of a single verse in scripture that would solve about a hundred of the items on his list. I made an offer. If I told him of that verse and he agreed that it solved the discrepancies I referenced, would he concede that it might be possible that other apparent discrepancies might have reasonable explanations?

He said no. He said that every discrepancy most stand on its own (actually true, but that wouldn't have conflicted with my offer). So I never told him the verse and he remained comfortable in his ignorance and rebellion, which I assume is what he wanted in the first place.

Jukia
March 16th, 2006, 11:01 AM
I have in the past examined literally hundreds of apparent biblical discrepancies. I have books in my library that present logical explanations of hundreds more.

Philosophically some[/] discrepanies [B]could exist that don't have a reasonable explanation, even l though I have never found one. But after examining so many and finding nothing very substantial I tired of this unproductive chore. So I usually leave it to others who do not seem to realize that no amount of effort in this area will ever dissuade a person determined to disbelieve. They would just shift to another case.

I once conversed will a skeptic who collects lists of apparent discrepancies. I mentioned to him that I knew of a single verse in scripture that would solve about a hundred of the items on his list. I made an offer. If I told him of that verse and he agreed that it solved the discrepancies I referenced, would he concede that it might be possible that other apparent discrepancied might have reasonable explanations?

He said no. He said that every discrepancy most stand on its own (actually true, but that wouldn't have conflicted with my offer). So I never told him the verse and he remained comfortable in his ignorance and rebellion, which I assume is what he wanted in the first place.

Oh please, oh please, oh please. give us the magic verse that resolves all Biblical discrepancies. thanks so much.

bob b
March 16th, 2006, 11:26 AM
Oh please, oh please, oh please. give us the magic verse that resolves all Biblical discrepancies. thanks so much.

It is revealed in the book The Plot.

fool
March 16th, 2006, 11:34 AM
It is revealed in the book The Plot.
Are you positing that Bob Enyart is a conduit of devine revealation??? :noway:

bob b
March 16th, 2006, 11:41 AM
Are you positing that Bob Enyart is a conduit of devine revealation??? :noway:

Ask him next time you call in.

Yorzhik
March 16th, 2006, 11:56 AM
BTW, Johnny, bob b didn't say it solved all discrepancies, but about 100 on that list.

Granite
March 16th, 2006, 12:09 PM
How did King Saul die?

thelaqachisnext
March 16th, 2006, 12:23 PM
Is it too much of a 'stretch' to believe that The One Who created everything out of nothing would have enough sense to know the speed of light, and create stars along with their 'visible' light so that they could be observed instantly, upon thier creation, even though they are so distant?

S-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-d out the heavens is what He said He did!

Methinks the created heavens are not the sum total of what we can see with our fallen eyes and whatever else we can invent to look out at the creation with,taking into consideration all in scripture; but that we are like fish in a fishbowl trying to mesure all things from within our own limited boundaries. Never having been on the outside looking in, we cannot imagine what is outside, that we are veiled from seeing because of the fall.

Methinks, also, that the speed of light has no relation to travel through God's creation, but that magnetism of atoms was created by the Creator to be used to place the sun, moon, and stars in their place in the six literal days of creation -and holds them in their respective orbits.
I think gravity is not what we think of it as, but that there is a magnetic field in all creation that causes all creation to operate as it does by the magnetism within the atoms.
I am not a scientist nor do I play one, but I read and believe, and the speed of light is not relevant to the age of the created heavens, I think.
Magnetic fields are responsible for us seeing the 'distant' created heavenly bodies that were placed in orbit in the six days of creation.

How is it that the angel Gabriel was caused to 'fly swiftly' unless he regulated the earth's magnetic field's pull upon himself? Angels don't flap wings and use 'gravity' and don't operate within the boundaries we are held captive in, in our fallen nature.

thelaqachisnext
March 16th, 2006, 12:52 PM
Exactly--building a tower would have worked!

What exactly was Jehovah and his company afraid of?
He wasn't afraid of anything. He just stopped Nimrod &Co from getting into the heavenly realm that all in Adam are veiled from seeing and getting into -until we come through the True accepted Gate; which is the True Mercy Seat [the Mercy Seat is the New Man body of YHWH in flesh, as our Kinsman Redeemer/Avenger] where the blood of sprinkling was offered once, and accepted, for all in Adam to be cleansed from their unclean defilement and accepted in the Beloved Firstborn Son of God into the Presence on high.

Being made acceptably clean, we must now be reclothed with clean garments to enter in: which garments are the New Spirit (by being regenerated in spirit by the Spirit of adoption, in Christ), and the regenerated body; which is the 'body of adoption' remade in the image of the New Man, Jesus the Messiah.

No man can climb up any other way, and Nimrod & co had found a way -a gate- to get there, for the word 'babel' was 'god's gate' (gate of god), in Aramaic. The devil will still try to use men to climb up and take the throne in the created heaven, under the wicked one's inspiration, according to Isaiah 14, for he tries to overthrow the throne of the LORD in Jerusalem and in heaven, that the 'Word of God' come in flesh shall return to sit upon in Jerusalem and sits upon as the New Creation human being in the created heaven (since His ascension in His New Man human body in which He is glorified and in which He is returning to reign over His ransomed kingdom as 'the Son of Man').

It's an ongoing battle that began with Satan using men -first, Nimrod & co- against the throne of the LORD in heaven -and on earth.


Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Isa 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

If Nimrod had been allowed to succeed, the heavens and the earth would have been melted at that time: but he could not be allowed to succeed, for the plan was made to have redeemed, human sons of God inhabit this -now, to be regenerated- earth, forever. Even before we were created as 'sons of God' 'in Adam', and fell, the plan was made for our redemption, in Christ ...and the plan will be finished. Then, after all the sons of God are 'harvested'; the heavens and the earth will be melted and regenerated.
Nimrod &co had to be stopped, and they were, so that the plan could proceed for our redemption in Christ.

So we have thousands of languages that set brilliant mankind [Adamkind] back, a few thousand years, from his rebellion against the throne of the LORD and against His only 'Way' 'back' to the presence of the glory.

hatsoff
March 16th, 2006, 01:00 PM
I have in the past examined literally hundreds of apparent biblical discrepancies. I have books in my library that present logical explanations of hundreds more.

Philosophically some discrepancies could exist that don't have a reasonable explanation, even though I have never found one. But after examining so many and finding nothing very substantial I tired of this unproductive chore. So I usually leave it to others who do not seem to realize that no amount of effort in this area will ever dissuade a person determined to disbelieve. They would just shift to another case.

I once conversed will a skeptic who collects lists of apparent discrepancies. I mentioned to him that I knew of a single verse in scripture that would solve about a hundred of the items on his list. I made an offer. If I told him of that verse and he agreed that it solved the discrepancies I referenced, would he concede that it might be possible that other apparent discrepancies might have reasonable explanations?

He said no. He said that every discrepancy most stand on its own (actually true, but that wouldn't have conflicted with my offer). So I never told him the verse and he remained comfortable in his ignorance and rebellion, which I assume is what he wanted in the first place.

I do understand what you're getting at here, and to some degree I sympathise. I know exactly the folks you're talking about; I've seen them here and elsewhere, and it sickens me a bit every time. They give us agnostics/atheists a bad name!

However, while perhaps 80-90% or so of these "apparent" contradictions don't pan out realistically, the other 10-20% do. One such example is the faith v. works issue I mentioned before.

And even out of those, it is possible (although implausible, in my opinion) to resolve them by stretching--but not quite breaking--logic a bit. However, I just find it much more likely that they are indeed contradictions, not just unclear complexities or differing emphases.

Aimiel
March 16th, 2006, 01:06 PM
Methinks the created heavens are not the sum total of what we can see with our fallen eyes and whatever else we can invent to look out at the creation with,taking into consideration all in scripture; but that we are like fish in a fishbowl trying to mesure all things from within our own limited boundaries. Never having been on the outside looking in, we cannot imagine what is outside, that we are veiled from seeing because of the fall.I believe that to be an excellent point-of-view, and think of time and space as the definition of that bubble. The spirit realm cannot be comprehended from within the 'time-space bubble' that we are subject to.
How is it that the angel Gabriel was caused to 'fly swiftly' unless he regulated the earth's magnetic field's pull upon himself? Angels don't flap wings and use 'gravity' and don't operate within the boundaries we are held captive in, in our fallen nature.I believe that spirit-beings are capable of travelling at the speed of thought.

thelaqachisnext
March 16th, 2006, 02:01 PM
I believe that to be an excellent point-of-view, and think of time and space as the definition of that bubble. The spirit realm cannot be comprehended from within the 'time-space bubble' that we are subject to. I believe that spirit-beings are capable of travelling at the speed of thought.

Thank you Aimel, for your reply.

As to the travel at the speed of thought, yes, but much more than thinking has to be involved, methinks.
I believe Scripture shows that spirit beings can eat, and have bodies, just not bodies of this earth's dust as we in Adam do. So they have substance, just not our substance. The manna fed to the Israelites was called 'angels' food', and called the 'corn' [as a grain, which is threshed] 'of heaven'.
They can eat men's food, cook, and there was some kind of rod that vaporized a bullock in a moment, and one was able to make a rock 'a stove' to cook cakes on -all this I gleaned from various passages in Scripture; and if Gabriel was caused to fly swiftly, I don't think he thought faster, but that he used the force of magnetism to get to Daniel faster when he was able to do so -after battling with the prince of Persia for 21 days and getting help from another like himself, Michael, who is the 'chief' of his kind, apparently.

How did the devil take Jesus 'in a moment of time', bodily, to the pinnacle of the temple and show him all the kingdoms of this world?

Our daughter and a friend were trapped under a log jam in a river a couple of years ago when their rafts were overturned at a log jam, by a swift current, and they were swept under the mass of logs and unable to get even their heads out to breathe. My daughter was held under by her fanny pack's straps being caught in the back side of her and her shoe strings caught at her feet; being unable to move or to have a place to get up and out, if she could; she knew she was gonig to drown and felt peaceful about the fact that she knew where she was going when she died; but all of a sudden, when she had no air left, she was of a sudden up, out of the water, without any memory of being released or of getting up! She was just there, on top of a log, with one leg around it, and one in the water, and looking for her friend.
She called to her; "Arlene! Are you up!', and immediately she saw her face not far away, down, below water under a mess of debree that had no free space for even her head to come up through: but as she looked at her -of a sudden- her friend was also up! without climbing out or having any memory of coming through the impossible mat of branches that she was under. Now we would describe that as a miracle, and it was; but something happened to those physical bodies that they were both transported from under tree branches underwater to on top of those traps and out of the water. I think the miracles of the LORD like that would be commonplace if we had not fallen, for we would be sons of God and not 'veiled' from the spiritual realm as we are at this time in our fallen bodies.

Jukia
March 16th, 2006, 02:18 PM
I am not a scientist nor do I play one.

That has to be about the only thing you have written that makes any sense at all.

Jukia
March 16th, 2006, 02:22 PM
It is revealed in the book The Plot.

Ah, yes the special book, the special verse. Can anyone say "cult". Do we need the special glasses? Ooops, sorry, that was the golden plates that Joseph Smith found.

Aimiel
March 16th, 2006, 02:23 PM
How did the devil take Jesus 'in a moment of time', bodily, to the pinnacle of the temple and show him all the kingdoms of this world? I don't believe that happened 'bodily' but that it was a spiritual 'showing' or vision.
Our daughter and a friend were trapped under a log jam in a river a couple of years ago when their rafts were overturned at a log jam, by a swift current, and they were swept under the mass of logs and unable to get even their heads out to breathe. My daughter was held under by her fanny pack's straps being caught in the back side of her and her shoe strings caught at her feet; being unable to move or to have a place to get up and out, if she could; she knew she was gonig to drown and felt peaceful about the fact that she knew where she was going when she died; but all of a sudden, when she had no air left, she was of a sudden up, out of the water, without any memory of being released or of getting up! She was just there, on top of a log, with one leg around it, and one in the water, and looking for her friend. I call that 'translation' which is what happened to Jesus, if what you believe (bodily travel to the pinnacle) happened, and is the method spirit travels superceding the temporal realm.
I think the miracles of the LORD like that would be commonplace if we had not fallen, for we would be sons of God and not 'veiled' from the spiritual realm as we are at this time in our fallen bodies.I agree, although Jesus' completed work at Calvary destroyed that veil, but how many of us walk in what He has provided? When we finally do come together in the unity of the faith and the knowledge of The Son of God as a mature body, fitly joined together, His enemies will be made His footstool.

bob b
March 16th, 2006, 04:39 PM
However, while perhaps 80-90% or so of these "apparent" contradictions don't pan out realistically, the other 10-20% do. One such example is the faith v. works issue I mentioned before.


Yes, as you apparently correctly guessed, the faith versus works issue was the one where some 100 or so "discrepant" verses are resolved by that single key verse.

hatsoff
March 16th, 2006, 04:58 PM
Yes, as you apparently correctly guessed, the faith versus works issue was the one where some 100 or so "discrepant" verses are resolved by that single key verse.

You understand if I'm skeptical of this all-encompassing verse which will harmonize logical contradictions. However, I'm still quite curious to hear what it is.

thelaqachisnext
March 16th, 2006, 06:30 PM
That has to be about the only thing you have written that makes any sense at all.
Actually, Jukia, I find more in Scripture than science has ever tried to come to grips with.

CS Lewis did, too, and wrote wonderful fiction stories just touching on the fringes of those things he read in Scripture.
I'm not a theologian, either. But I love and read think about the Word of God and I find more in Scripture than some who call themselves theologians have ever come to grips with, either.
So tell me how you can grasp angels with wings 'flying'? What is flight and where do they 'fly' from, and to?

And I don't think you are a scientist, either, if you want to use the same measure for yourself as for me; and a 'BS' is just BS -nothing more than that! -as far as giving you understanding about the uiniverse and it's Creator..

bob b
March 16th, 2006, 07:02 PM
You understand if I'm skeptical of this all-encompassing verse which will harmonize logical contradictions. However, I'm still quite curious to hear what it is.

You will have to remain curious unless you read The Plot as I once did. This helped me greatly in understanding what the NT was all about and from then on whenever I read Paul's letters they finally made perfect sense to me. A real "breakthrough".

hatsoff
March 16th, 2006, 07:08 PM
You will have to remain curious unless you read The Plot as I once did. This helped me greatly in understanding what the NT was all about and from then on whenever I read Paul's letters they finally made perfect sense to me. A real "breakthrough".

Typical.

thelaqachisnext
March 16th, 2006, 08:40 PM
I don't believe that happened 'bodily' but that it was a spiritual 'showing' or vision.

I call that 'translation' which is what happened to Jesus, if what you believe (bodily travel to the pinnacle) happened, and is the method spirit travels superceding the temporal realm.I agree, although Jesus' completed work at Calvary destroyed that veil, but how many of us walk in what He has provided?

When we finally do come together in the unity of the faith and the knowledge of The Son of God as a mature body, fitly joined together, His enemies will be made His footstool.
Hello Aimiel,
I do believe that Jesus was shown a 'vision' of the kingdoms of the world while on the pinnacle, but hubby just read that chapter a couple weeks ago and stopped to discuss it with me , so it was fresh in my mind. As far as the reading goes, it does seem to imply that He was taken bodily, in His Person, to the pinnalce - and that was the center of hubby's discussion, too, and why Jesus would have allowed the devil to 'take him'?...

Paul didn't know, though, if he was taken to heaven in his body or out of it when he saw things he could not mention.

When Jesus walked on water he was doing so as a human in his body, too, and the water was as a solid to him.


As to how many of us don't walk in what He has provided: though I do not believe in name it and claim it, I do believe in the power granted us in the name of Jesus to do the works He did (which means that we will pray to know what that will is, that we can walk in). He said that if we had the faith as a grain of mustard seed we could say to yonder mountain be removed and cast into the sea and doubt not, and it would be done. A lesson to consider in those words, is it not? when and how we should act in that kind of faith and about what issues. All in His name, though, and not of our own selves and whims.


All these are cause for pause, to me, and no, I do not understand the means, but I do believe magnetism of atomic structures causes angels to be able to fly through the realms of heaven and earth without the speed of light being needed. And I do think the creation has magnetic fields that hold all things within their place (even fallen mankind to earth) -which can be transcended by 'unveiled' bodies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
As to the girls, Yes, they were both 'translated' just as Phillip was, when the Spirit took him after the baptisim of the Ethiopian Eunuch, but something real happens when one is 'translated' because the spirit has real properties -but not of this earth's physical properties -and we just don't understand it because of the fall.

Even the rich man in Hades -disembodied but bound in hell beneath till his day of resurrection and judgment- wanted water on his tongue and spoke with his voice and saw with his eyes across the chasm to Abraham and Lazarus -none of them were in their clay bodies, but they had real 'bodies' of substance.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

BTW, I remembered that when daughter saw her friend under the -impossible to escape from- mass of branches and roots, and the next instant she was out, from under it, that she also was instantly standing above my daughter, on the log that daughter had one leg over, and with her hand outstretched to give daughter a hand up! The place daughter saw her under was not at that spot that she stood above her at, when free.
Neither can remember any movement of getting out or of coming out -they just were out! PTL!

The friend also said that she was rebreathing the air that she was breathing out, (I didn't know one could do that) and she saw a water bottle go bobbing on down, on top, and thought she'd just 'quit trying' to struggle to live and just 'go' (she'd been having many tribulations in her life at that time and thought about ending it easily, right then, she told us, later) when at that moment she heard the call of my daughter; "Arlene! Are you up?" and immediately thought; "No! I want to live!" -then, of a sudden, there she was, on top of that log above my daughter, reaching out her hand to give her a lift!

Jukia
March 17th, 2006, 06:53 AM
CS Lewis did, too, and wrote wonderful fiction stories just touching on the fringes of those things he read in Scripture.
.

Note the word "fiction".

Aimiel
March 17th, 2006, 08:22 AM
Indeed, The Lord is to be praised for what happened that day that your daughter and her friend were saved physically by The Spirit of Grace.
Even the rich man in Hades -disembodied but bound in hell beneath till his day of resurrection and judgment- wanted water on his tongue and spoke with his voice and saw with his eyes across the chasm to Abraham and Lazarus -none of them were in their clay bodies, but they had real 'bodies' of substance.Too often people who are forced to 'picture' the spirit realm do so with ideas that a spirit is a wispy ghost with no substance. Spirit has more substance than temporal bodies do, not less. The spirit-realm is above the physical, not beneath. The ideas and information that we have on that realm is (at best) only what we 'see through the glass, darkly'.

GuySmiley
March 17th, 2006, 10:23 AM
Ah, yes the special book, the special verse. Can anyone say "cult". Do we need the special glasses? Ooops, sorry, that was the golden plates that Joseph Smith found.
And you are basing this opinion on what formal training in theology? What qualifies you to have an opinion on this issue? Go learn some Christianity.

Jukia
March 17th, 2006, 10:29 AM
And you are basing this opinion on what formal training in theology? What qualifies you to have an opinion on this issue? Go learn some Christianity.

Hey, all I asked for was the special verse that bob b claimed settled most Biblical contradictions and discrepancies. If your job is to spread the Gospel, then spread it. He brought the issue up, not me.
And theology? 16 years of Catholic school education (now I know that many of you here consider that heretical but it did include a great deal of theology) and several years of Bible study (with a literal "the Bible says what it says" group).
Anyone who reads the Bible and takes it word for word literal has a problem if only with the "seeming" contradictions between the Bible and the evidence science gives us.
But please, use your best efforts to have bob b give us the info. Thanks so very much.

Shalom
March 17th, 2006, 12:06 PM
And you are basing this opinion on what formal training in theology? What qualifies you to have an opinion on this issue? Go learn some Christianity.


Whoa GuySmilie you sounded just like someone else.......Now who always posts junk just like this....hmmmmmm lets see :think:


:chuckle: