Magus55: The Mindset of Rationalizing Away Bible Contradictions

[WinAce]

I'm just curious. What exactly would it take for you to admit there's a contradiction in the Bible? Is there anything so blatant and contradictory that you'd say "huh?" and abandon inerrancy instead of looking for a reconciliation, no matter how awkward?

Keep in mind that the mindset of "there can't be any contradictions" can be used to refute plot holes in anything, from the Qu'ran to Star Trek (http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/st_contradictions_refuted.htm).

[Spaz]

lmao, that star trek site is hilarious, it does a good job of representing apologetics

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It would take the destruction of his belief structure, of course. His indoctrination would shatter. His world would open and he would at last be free, which is, of course, his conditioned hell.

In other words, it would take hell freezing over :p

[MrDarwin]

We've already been through all of this with Vanderzyden. If apologists can rationalize the two different accounts of Judas (what he did with the money he got for betraying Jesus, and how he died) then they can rationalize absolutely anything.

[Magus55]

Originally posted by WinAce
I'm just curious. What exactly would it take for you to admit there's a contradiction in the Bible? Is there anything so blatant and contradictory that you'd say "huh?" and abandon inerrancy instead of looking for a reconciliation, no matter how awkward?

Keep in mind that the mindset of "there can't be any contradictions" can be used to refute plot holes in anything, from the Qu'ran to Star Trek (http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/st_contradictions_refuted.htm). What would it take? Prove God doesn't exist with 100% factual basis. :p

[Gooch's dad]

Hi, Magus55,

Would you mind elaborating a bit on the logic you're using there?

It certainly appears your position seems to be:

God might possibly exist

Therefore the bible cannot have any contradictions.


This isn't really what you're claiming, is it?

Cheers,

-Kelly

[davidH]

In answer to your Judas statement:

Matthew 27.

1. Judas gets 30 silver coins
2. Realises what he had done and wants to return the money.
3. Priests couldn't care less what he had done - Judas flings the money into the temple and leaves.
4. He went away and hung himself
5. Priests use the money to by the potter's field to use as a burial ground for foreigners.

Acts 1

1. With the reward Judas got, he bought a field.
2. There he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines fell out.

Firstly if the Bible is correct in everything that it says then:

The priests wouldn't accept 'blood money' for their own use. It was against the law to put it into the treasury, because of what it had been used to condemn an innocent man to death.

That field were Judas hung himself would have been considered cursed/defiled (Remember the whole of Jerusalem heard about it- the priests then bought the field in Judas' name for they couldn't consider the money as their own, so it was his money and hence the reason why it became a graveyard for foreigners.

I guess the biggest problem that is seen with this is not that Juads fell headlong - since he could well have fell after hanging himself, rather it is in that statement of Peter "Judas bought a field".

Looking at it from a different angle - did the priests buy the field?

If I have 10 dollars, and I give the $10 to my little brother and tell him to go down to the shop and get me $10 worth of sweets. He returns and gives me the sweets.

Who bought the sweets?

Sure my little brother paid for the sweets, but did he buy them?

The answer is that I bought them - because my money was paid, they are mine - I get them. My brother only acted as a messenger to get the money from my wallet to the shop.

There is a difference between paying and buying. If I pay for something, I have not necessarily bought it. eg. I pay for the flights for my sister, but it is she who has bought the tickets.

The person who buys something exchanges their money for something and therefore owns what they have bought. If you use my money to get something you can't say that you own it, it is still mine because you only paid my money.

So Peter is correct when he says that Judas bought the field

It wasn't the priests' money - it was Judas' - he bought the field, the priests only paid for it.

[BadBadBad]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
It would take the destruction of his belief structure, of course. His indoctrination would shatter. His world would open and he would at last be free, which is, of course, his conditioned hell.

In other words, it would take hell freezing over :p

I agree that there are a lot of folks out there that would see it that way, but probably there's a lot more that admit the Bible has problems. They can accept that in fact it's full of big problems. How many people still believe the stories in Genesis or Exodus are factually true? They still believe in christianity.

For atheists, the contradictions and errors support our beliefs. For christians, I don't get it. Stories about walking on water, casting devils into pigs, butchering women and children, parting the Red Sea, or any of the rest of it don't shatter their belief structure or discredit christianity in their mind. So why should conflicting stories of Genesis or Judas death be so disturbing? Why not just admit it? They take what they want and ignore the rest already. Why not just write off all the contradictions and errors along with what they already right off: atrocities, immorality, absurdities, injustice, etc. etc. etc?

Believe in your sky daddy, believe what you want out of the Bible, and just blame all the rest on the authors for just not getting it? We're talking about an infinite God here. Did you expect these mere mortals to get it, right it down, and preserve it perfectly for well over 2000 years? Is that reasonable?

[Steven Carr]

Originally posted by Gooch's dad
Hi, Magus55,

Would you mind elaborating a bit on the logic you're using there?

It certainly appears your position seems to be:

God might possibly exist

Therefore the bible cannot have any contradictions.


This isn't really what you're claiming, is it?

Cheers,

-Kelly

It is indeed and very silly it is too. Among other things, it means the human beings who chose what books went into the Bible could make no mistakes, and magically chose only works free of contradiction.

Strange that God could not make humans who did not go wrong, but can inspire those same humans to write error-free books, despite their haveing free will to make mistakes writing those books, or did God remove their free will to choose to err?

[Magus55]

It would take hell freezing over for an atheist to believe in and worship the Christian God, so whats the difference?

We are very much alike in that both are firm in their beliefs.

[TiConTiki]

The Judas conflict is but one of hundreds of conflicts in the Bible. It is only to those who are afraid that they may lose their heavenly reward that 'ignorance is bliss'.

One of my favorite is the story of Adam and Eve and the Garden. The snake tells them one story - God tells them another story - and when all is said and done - the snake is the one who told the truth.

But to hear a Christian tell it - even though God lied - He is the good guy - so instead of believing what the story actually says - they want to tell you what it 'means'. And usually that consists of saying, "We can't understand the ways of God" - or some such foolishness.

Faith is not based on logic - it is based on fear.

[Gooch's dad]

Maybe, maybe not, Magus.

I'm sure the occasional atheist converts to Christianity, and vice versa. That isn't the topic of this thread though, is it?

Your last reply smacks of a 'tu quoque'--you are trying to claim that we're closed minded, so you can be closed minded too. But we've pointed out a huge double standard you have in your judgements, Magus. You're willing to accept one particular set of ancient writings as divinely inspired and infallible, but you don't accept any other ancient writings as infallible.

Are you getting the picture here? Now, can you try to honestly answer the question from the OP? Thanks, man.

-Kelly

[Kosh]

Originally posted by Magus55
[B]It would take hell freezing over for an atheist to believe in and worship the Christian God, so whats the difference?
[/q]

No, first you'd have to prove the existence of Hell! ;)

[Goliath]

Magus55,



[Atheists and xians] are very much alike in that both are firm in their beliefs.



Incorrect. I am an atheist, and I hold no beliefs whatsoever regarding the existence of anything supernatural.

Sincerely,

Goliath

[davidH]

brettc,

So why should conflicting stories of Genesis or Judas death be so disturbing?


I am aware of no conflicting stories of Genesis. Would you care to enlighten me?

But to hear a Christian tell it - even though God lied - He is the good guy - so instead of believing what the story actually says - they want to tell you what it 'means'.
And usually that consists of saying, "We can't understand the ways of God" - or some such foolishness.

Did God lie?

I persume you are talking about God saying if you eat the fruit you'll die?

God had created a perfect world - Adam and Eve had not yet sinned by eating of the fruit.

Romans 5 v 12

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man,and death through sin , and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned -

What is Paul saying here? That death only came as a result of sin.
This being the case, there was no death before Adam and Eve sinned, God had not made them to die.

So death was not present in God's perfect world, and what does God say to Adam and Eve?

But you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die .

And once Adam and Eve ate of it sin entered the world corrupting all that God had done, and Adam and Eve did die - just as God had said.

Many persume that life has always been the same, but when God created the world there was no death - and what God said came true - they did surely die, as recorded in Genesis.
Many persume that Adam and Eve would have died anyway and so persume that God must have meant that they would die on the spot right after they had eaten from the tree, but that is incorrect.

I hope you can understand it now, God told the truth.

[TiConTiki]

Originally posted by davidH
brettc,



I am aware of no conflicting stories of Genesis. Would you care to enlighten me?




Would it really make a difference if someone 'enlightens' you?

Or would you just explain it away?

:)

[davidH]

Goliath,

But you do have a belief regarding the supernatural. Your belief is that they don't exist.

[Jinto]

DavidH:

From the King James Bible (Accepted by fundamentalists everywhere)

Genesis 2:17 - But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

And Adam lived for 930 years afterward. Hardly "in the day thou eatest thereof."

And here I await the rationalization of "spiritual death."

[Goliath]

davidH,

Originally posted by davidH
Goliath,

But you do have a belief regarding the supernatural. Your belief is that they don't exist.

No, you didn't carefully read what I said. I said that I hold absolutely no beliefs whatsoever regarding the existence of anything supernatural.

This means that I do not believe that gods exist, and it means that I do not believe that no gods exist.

Please, pay attention.

Sincerely,

Goliath

[Steven Carr]

Originally posted by davidH
[B]brettc,


So death was not present in God's perfect world, and what does God say to Adam and Eve?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die .
----------------------




I see you have chosen a version which ignores the fact that the actual Hebrew says 'in the day (yom) that you eat). Why have you missed out the word 'day'?



Many persume that life has always been the same, but when God created the world there was no death - and what God said came true - they did surely die, as recorded in Genesis.






There was nothing sure about it at all. Even after the eating, Adam and Eve could still have lived for ever, see Genesis 3:22 where God explains how.

Presumably, you think it right to say that if I am bitten by a snake I will surely die. And if I reply, 'I will live if I take the antidote', you say , I meant 'surely die, unless you live after all'.

[BadBadBad]

Originally posted by davidH
I am aware of no conflicting stories of Genesis. Would you care to enlighten me?


You can enlighten yourself any time you want. The information is readily available, but I think you know that. Is it a surprise for you to hear about errancy in the Bible on an atheist web site? Did you want to argue with me in particular?

The topic here is what would it take to enlighten you that Genesis has contradictions, and in fact it's a silly bunch of stories about creation, great floods, people turning in to pillars of salt, talking snakes, etc etc. What would it take David?

[davidH]

Jinto,

Genesis 2:17 - But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

So we now revert to Old English in the King James version.

The phase you have a problem with is : 'for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.'

Jinto, what difference does inserting 'for in the day' in the place of 'when' in the KJV?

I am interested to know how you interpret the phrase 'for in the day' because you obviously are taking it to mean 'for on the day' and there is a difference.

'for when you eat of it you will surely die'
'for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die'

'for when thou eatest of the fruit, on that very day thou shalt die'
This is what would have been written if your interpretation is correct.

[davidH]

Steven Carr,

Having already posted above about the 'day'.

Many persume that life has always been the same, but when God created the world there was no death - and what God said came true - they did surely die, as recorded in Genesis.

To which you wrote:

There was nothing sure about it at all. Even after the eating, Adam and Eve could still have lived for ever, see Genesis 3:22 where God explains how.

No, they did surely die - just as God said. It was possible for them not to die, but that does not alter the truth of what God said, that they would surely die.

Brettc,

The information is readily available, but I think you know that. Is it a surprise for you to hear about errancy in the Bible on an atheist web site? Did you want to argue with me in particular?

Its no surprise to hear about it - but I see none in the passage we are discussing at the minute. No, I wasn't wanting to argue with you in particular, I was wondering if someone had happened to come up with another interpretation that forced errancy, that I hadn't heard about.

The topic here is what would it take to enlighten you that Genesis has contradictions, and in fact it's a silly bunch of stories about creation, great floods, people turning in to pillars of salt, talking snakes, etc etc. What would it take David?

Creation, is not silly, it is intirely feasible if God exists, the flood of Noah is also feasible, not only so but a lot of evidence has been gathered that indicates this, not to mention that nearly every ancient people group has a flood story of global proportions.
A person turning into a pillar of salt, and a talking snake.

What would it take? Well, perhaps more than the fairy tale of the frog that turned into a prince ;)

[Steven Carr]

Originally posted by davidH
Steven Carr,

Having already posted above about the 'day'.



To which you wrote:



No, they did surely die - just as God said. It was possible for them not to die, but that does not alter the truth of what God said, that they would surely die.



If it was possible for them not to die, then it was not sure, or at the least God made sure only *after* he had barred them from the tree of life, and not before.


And 'in the day' also means 'on the day', the meanings are identical.


Surprising how Christians struggle with basic English, yet can interpret Hebrew flawlessly.

[Magus55]

Originally posted by Steven Carr
If it was possible for them not to die, then it was not sure, or at the least God made sure only *after* he had barred them from the tree of life, and not before.


And 'in the day' also means 'on the day', the meanings are identical.


Surprising how Christians struggle with basic English, yet can interpret Hebrew flawlessly. Yet, "i don't believe in God" and " I have no belief in God" are completely two different meanings. :rolleyes:

That quote is not reffering to the second Adam eats from the tree, He will drop dead. It means when Adam eats from the tree, He will become corrupt and no longer live for ever. Yes He lived for a long time, but the verse never says anything about him having to die immediately.

[Clutch]

It means when Adam eats from the tree, He will become corrupt and no longer live for ever. Yes He lived for a long time, but the verse never says anything about him having to die immediately.Well, if the verse never says that, then it's settled!

Sort of like the verse nowhere says that Adam was otherwise going to live forever. Indeed, it suggests he had to eat from a special tree for that -- access to which was entirely a matter of geography.

...now watch the confabulation, reinterpretation and evasion continue...

[Asha'man]

Originally posted by Magus55
Yes He lived for a long time, but the verse never says anything about him having to die immediately.

Actually, it says exactly that: On the same day that you eat the fruit, you will die. That is the plain meaning of the words. Any other interpretation is more wishful thinking that anything else.

[Magus55]

Originally posted by Asha'man
Actually, it says exactly that: On the same day that you eat the fruit, you will die. That is the plain meaning of the words. Any other interpretation is more wishful thinking that anything else. You keep thinking that... Must please your atheistic mind to think you know a contradiction of something that doesn't even exist to you. :rolleyes:

[Viti]

the flood of Noah is also feasible, not only so but a lot of evidence has been gathered that indicates this, not to mention that nearly every ancient people group has a flood story of global proportions.

There was no global flood, period...the evidence does not in any way indicate there was and in fact much evidence falsifies the theory. For one thing there are civilizations with unbroken records from pre-during-and post the supposed flood dates.

There was probably a large regional flood, maybe even several...but no global flood. So The Bible is wrong.

And as for the Judas story, I hope you do a twisting double back flip as a dismount for those gymnastics.

[Jinto]

Originally posted by Magus55
Yet, "i don't believe in God" and " I have no belief in God" are completely two different meanings. :rolleyes:

No, those two have the same meaning, it's "I don't believe in God" and "I believe there is no God" that have different meanings.

As was said: Funny how theists have trouble with basic english, yet can interpret Hewbrew flawlessly.

By the way, who was Jesus's paternal Grandfather? :p

[Treacle Worshipper]

Originally posted by Magus55
Yet, "i don't believe in God" and " I have no belief in God" are completely two different meanings. :rolleyes:

As Jinto says, these mean exactly the same. The phrase you are looking for is, "I believe there are no gods."

Btw Magus, why do you feel it's necessary to disprove the existence of God in order to prove the Bible inerrant? Many Xians agree that the Bible is errant, but they don't think it impacts on God's existence. They think the Bible was passed by God to & through people, and people make mistakes. So I don't see why accepting that the Bible has some errors and contradictions would undermine your faith completely. After all, there are some words in the Bible where the translation from ancient Hebrew into modern English is uncertain, which is why many versions provide alternative translations in footnotes. (Including the KJV.)

Just wondering :)
TW

[Magus55]

Originally posted by Treacle Worshipper
As Jinto says, these mean exactly the same. The phrase you are looking for is, "I believe there are no gods."

Btw Magus, why do you feel it's necessary to disprove the existence of God in order to prove the Bible inerrant? Many Xians agree that the Bible is errant, but they don't think it impacts on God's existence. They think the Bible was passed by God to & through people, and people make mistakes. So I don't see why accepting that the Bible has some errors and contradictions would undermine your faith completely. After all, there are some words in the Bible where the translation from ancient Hebrew into modern English is uncertain, which is why many versions provide alternative translations in footnotes. (Including the KJV.)

Just wondering :)
TW I don't consider translations to be inerrant. I'm fully aware they do have errors, whether copyist errors, or problems with the translation from ancient Hebrew. I do however, believe the original Hebrew and Greek Bible's to be inerrant.

[Clutch]

Still waiting to learn where Genesis says that Adam was going to live forever if he did not eat the fruit...

[Treacle Worshipper]

Originally posted by Magus55
I don't consider translations to be inerrant. I'm fully aware they do have errors, whether copyist errors, or problems with the translation from ancient Hebrew. I do however, believe the original Hebrew and Greek Bible's to be inerrant.

Fair enough, and thank you.
(I looked into that point of view when I was Xian, and decided that it wasn't very helpful, 'cos we don't have the originals, so they can't have much bearing on life today. But that was just my opinion :) )
TW

[Magus55]

Originally posted by Treacle Worshipper
Fair enough, and thank you.
(I looked into that point of view when I was Xian, and decided that it wasn't very helpful, 'cos we don't have the originals, so they can't have much bearing on life today. But that was just my opinion :) )
TW Correct, since we don't have the originals, we can't really cross reference the translations. We just have to do what we can by cross referencing the earliest copies/manuscripts of the original ( Dead Sea Scrolls) and compare with the translations to understand the meanings. The study of the Bible is as in depth and complicated as science is. Theoligists, Archaeologists, historians , scientists, etc have been doing it for centuries.

[Gooch's dad]

But Magus, think about what you're saying here--you say that the originals are inerrant, but the translations (such as the KJV or NASB) might well have errors.

So what if I read an English-language bible, find that it obviously has contradictions and errors, and decide that Christianity is false because of this? Say I die the next day--in your worldview, I end up in hell for eternity due to a bad translation?

So your God is capable of inspiring inerrant Greek writers, inerrant Hebrew writers, but not inerrant translators? WTF?

[lpetrich]

Originally posted by Magus55
... Prove God doesn't exist with 100% factual basis. :p I don't have to, anymore than I have to prove with 100% certainty that Zeus does not exist. Or Odin. Or Amon-Ra. Or Marduk. Or Brahma. Or Quetzalcoatl. So should we worship all of these deities if we cannot rule out their existence with 100% certainty?

[Magus55]

Originally posted by Clutch
Still waiting to learn where Genesis says that Adam was going to live forever if he did not eat the fruit... Why does there need to be a specific reference that says, if you don't eat from this, you will live for ever? God said, if you do eat from this tree - you will die ( i.e, will no longer live forever). Use that common sense. If God says Adam will die from eating from the Tree, obviously not eating from it means He won't die. God gave you a brain for a reason. The Bible is not meant to point out every tiny little detail ever imaginable, only a basic layout and explanation of what you need to know. It takes a brain to figure out the rest. God didn't want the Bible to be a novel you read once, and get rid of it because you understand the entire thing on the first read.

[Magus55]

Originally posted by Gooch's dad
But Magus, think about what you're saying here--you say that the originals are inerrant, but the translations (such as the KJV or NASB) might well have errors.

So what if I read an English-language bible, find that it obviously has contradictions and errors, and decide that Christianity is false because of this? Say I die the next day--in your worldview, I end up in hell for eternity due to a bad translation?

So your God is capable of inspiring inerrant Greek writers, inerrant Hebrew writers, but not inerrant translators? WTF? No, you use your brain and realize there would likely be errors in copying and translation. If you had faith in God, and realized since He said the Bible is His word ( which became Flesh in Jesus) , and since God is perfect - His word has to be perfect. Common sense would then tell you that if you see a supposed contradiction in later translations - you would study it to realize its not actually a contradiction, only a mistranslation.

Having no Faith in God is where the problem stems from. You don't trust Him ( well you don't even believe in Him) - so you create your own problems. Thats also why God gave believers the Holy Spirit. When reading the Bible, the Holy Spirit helps us understand the Bible due to the difference in translations. Unbelievers don't have that, so its harder for them to understand it. If you had any trust in God, it wouldn't be an issue - therefore its your fault, not His.

[Clutch]

Why does there need to be a specific reference that says, if you don't eat from this, you will live for ever? Well... because you said so. Do you remember defending the coherence of Genesis by saying the following, just a few posts back:the verse never says anything about him having to die immediately.Because if you remember using this dodge, you should be worried about your own statement that Adam was going to live forever. The verse also never says anything about Adam living forever.

So your principle appears to be: Strictly textual when you want, but imposing stuff you make up when you want, too.

Which is sort of intellectually vacuous. A realization of which might lead one to recognize the bankruptcy of one's cherished belief...

[Gooch's dad]

<sigh> Magus, every time I read one of your posts, I think "did he really mean what he just said?"

Re-read what I asked you, ok? What if I, as a NON-Christian, read the bible and found it to be full of errors? I don't HAVE faith in your God to do things right.

What you are saying is that I need to have faith in order to read the bible, but don't I need to read the bible first in order to get the information necessary to decide whether to have faith?

Just use your head for a minute here, man. This is basic logic. Think of someone who has NEVER heard of Christianity, or only vaguely heard some stories about it, and decides to pick up an English bible and read it. They don't HAVE faith in your God, right? Why should they guess that the original documents of the bible were inerrant?

[Magus55]

Originally posted by Gooch's dad
<sigh> Magus, every time I read one of your posts, I think "did he really mean what he just said?"

Re-read what I asked you, ok? What if I, as a NON-Christian, read the bible and found it to be full of errors? I don't HAVE faith in your God to do things right.

What you are saying is that I need to have faith in order to read the bible, but don't I need to read the bible first in order to get the information necessary to decide whether to have faith?

Just use your head for a minute here, man. This is basic logic. Think of someone who has NEVER heard of Christianity, or only vaguely heard some stories about it, and decides to pick up an English bible and read it. They don't HAVE faith in your God, right? Why should they guess that the original documents of the bible were inerrant? Why does someone who just picks up the Bible have to have it be inerrant, or God doesn't exist? Using your analogy, say someone reads the Bible and notices errors in it. Is it not their fault for dismissing God's existence, just because of a book? Its not until you become a believer that you start understanding its much deeper and perfect meaning. But if you just choose to dismiss it entirely because at first glance, you claim there are errors - then thats your own fault. The OT isn't even the most important part of the Bible ( its very important though), the NT is. Just reading the Gospels is enough to show you the way to Salvation. Once you become a believer, the rest is easier to understand. And again, if you choose to rule out God's existence, just because at first look, you have a problem with part of the Bible - thats your own problem, and needs to be dealt with by you, not God.

[Kosh]

Originally posted by Gooch's dad
But Magus, think about what you're saying here--you say that the originals are inerrant, but the translations (such as the KJV or NASB) might well have errors.

It's worse than that Kelly! He's saying that the original version 1.0 of the greek and hebrew versions are innerrant. You know, that ones nobody has ever seen for thousands of years? The ones whose content we can only guess at.

Convenient, no?

[Magus55]

Originally posted by Kosh
It's worse than that Kelly! He's saying that the original version 1.0 of the greek and hebrew versions are innerrant. You know, that ones nobody has ever seen for thousands of years? The ones whose content we can only guess at.

Convenient, no? You have no proof that the originals weren't inerrant, whats wrong with assuming they are? You can say they were errant all you want, but until you can prove it ( good luck), its moot. God is perfect, and the original Bible is His word. Logical conclusion based on our beliefs means if He is perfect, His word most likely is too.

That and of the 24,000 original manuscript copies of the Bible combined have less than a .5% error rating, more accurate over the years than any other book in human history - its not a big stretch for us.

[Gooch's dad]

OK, Magus, I can tell you're trying here. And I really appreciate that. Honestly, I do.

Yours is a fair question--why would I expect the bible to be free of errors and contradictions? Well, because Christians claim that it is the Word of God, right?

So is the NT supposed to be better than the OT? There is much less violence and so forth, I'll agree. But the contradictions are there, and they're right in your face. The first book, Matthew, has a genealogy of Jesus. A bit later, Luke has a genealogy too. They are obviously different. It is as obvious as can be that they are both supposed to be a genealogy of Jesus, through his father Joseph, and they can't even agree on who Jesus's paternal grandfather is.

This isn't just a hyopthetical, Magus. I was maybe 14 or 15 when I picked up a bible and ran across this. I immediately realized that the bible simply could not be presented as 'the Word of God', not in any sense of being error-free.

Are you getting the picture here?

[Gooch's dad]

Originally posted by Magus55

That and of the 24,000 original manuscript copies of the Bible combined have less than a .5% error rating, more accurate over the years than any other book in human history - its not a big stretch for us.

C'mon, Magus, we've torn that argument to shreds. There are only a few manuscripts from the first few centuries of Christianity. And even those are copies of copies of copies. Once the process of canonization took place, there was more consistency in the copying process. Big deal. But there aren't 24,000 early Greek manuscripts. Quit tossing out that Josh McDowell crap if you want a serious discussion.

[Demigawd]

God is perfect, and the original Bible is His word. Logical conclusion based on our beliefs means if He is perfect, His word most likely is too.

Is it not their fault for dismissing God's existence, just because of a book? Its not until you become a believer that you start understanding its much deeper and perfect meaning.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you a "perfect" case of circular reasoning. In other words, in order for the bible to be perfect, you have to believe it's perfect. You can't conclude it's perfect because, well, that's based upon actual observation and understanding. You have to have already made up your mind that it is true and perfect.:rolleyes:

[Magus55]

Originally posted by Gooch's dad
OK, Magus, I can tell you're trying here. And I really appreciate that. Honestly, I do.

Yours is a fair question--why would I expect the bible to be free of errors and contradictions? Well, because Christians claim that it is the Word of God, right?

So is the NT supposed to be better than the OT? There is much less violence and so forth, I'll agree. But the contradictions are there, and they're right in your face. The first book, Matthew, has a genealogy of Jesus. A bit later, Luke has a genealogy too. They are obviously different. It is as obvious as can be that they are both supposed to be a genealogy of Jesus, through his father Joseph, and they can't even agree on who Jesus's paternal grandfather is.

This isn't just a hyopthetical, Magus. I was maybe 14 or 15 when I picked up a bible and ran across this. I immediately realized that the bible simply could not be presented as 'the Word of God', not in any sense of being error-free.

Are you getting the picture here?

Well, first here is an explanation for the different geneologies.

http://www.carm.org/diff/2geneologies.htm

You may not like the explanation, but its one nonetheless.

Now, yes i get what you are saying, but i still think its a poor reason to discredit God. Say God did let humans write the Bible basically on their own. God was involved in it since it is primarily about Him, but suppose the contradictions are there due to human writing error. How does that discredit God? You have to look at the overall picture. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of most of the places and events in the Bible. Its irrational to assume the Apostles were just making it up since they did go from being cowards in hiding, to boldly proclaiming Jesus' truth, only to end up dying in very nasty ways. Christianity succeeded, which it never would have done if it was a complete fairy tale. Legends don't start that fast. So it is reasonable to assume the Apostles were telling the truth and described what they saw and heard. Whether there are errors or not, doesn't meant God doesn't exist, or the accounts of Jesus weren't real, it just means humans completely wrote it the best they could with the knowledge and writing ability they had at the time, and there are bound to be a few errors or discrepancies.

Do you throw out your trust in science just because science books or theories end up having errors in them? Humans are fallible, and for an unbeliever - taking the translations of the Bible as perfectly inerrant is a poor approach at trying to understand God. Its accurate enough for its purpose.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by Magus55
God said, if you do eat from this tree - you will die ( i.e, will no longer live forever). Use that common sense. If God says Adam will die from eating from the Tree, obviously not eating from it means He won't die.

No, {if A, then B} does not mean {if not-A, then not-B}.

Example: "if you jump-off of a tall building, then you will die" does not mean or imply that "if you don't jump-off of a tall building, then you won't die;' maybe you will, maybe you won't. Perhaps if you don't jump-off of a tall building, then I will push you-off of it, or shoot you; either way, the initial statement is true, but the inference you drew about what would happen if you didn't jump is incorrect.

Rick

[Gooch's dad]

Originally posted by Magus55
Well, first here is an explanation for the different geneologies.

http://www.carm.org/diff/2geneologies.htm

You may not like the explanation, but its one nonetheless.

You're forgetting our hypothetical situation--some guy that picks up a bible one day, reads it, finds a contradiction like the geneologies, decides Christianity is wrong, and dies without having anyone explaining otherwise. Focus on that, Magus. What happens to that person? Hmm? Just give me that answer, will you? That was the point of the inerrancy discussion. If modern english texts have errors, then people get doomed to eternal hellfire because of some translation error?

Magus55:
Now, yes i get what you are saying, but i still think its a poor reason to discredit God. Say God did let humans write the Bible basically on their own. God was involved in it since it is primarily about Him, but suppose the contradictions are there due to human writing error. How does that discredit God?

Me: See above. It means that God doesn't care about preserving the inerrancy of his Word.

You have to look at the overall picture. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of most of the places and events in the Bible.

And archeology confirms that a whole lot more of the bible (such as the flood, the exodus, etc, never happened). Some of the NT writers also exhibit very poor understanding of Palestinian geography--Mark, for example, thinks that you go through Bethpage and then Bethany when traveling from Jericho to Jerusalem. That's backwards. Nazareth is described as having cliffs outside of town--there are no cliffs for many miles around. Just a few examples there...

Its irrational to assume the Apostles were just making it up since they did go from being cowards in hiding, to boldly proclaiming Jesus' truth, only to end up dying in very nasty ways. Christianity succeeded, which it never would have done if it was a complete fairy tale.

So are you also willing to accept the other stories of supernatural events from 2000 years ago, such as the miracles performed by Appolonius of Tyana? And by the argument you just presented, you would have to accept Islam as being true.

Legends don't start that fast.

Nonsense. Even Acts records an example that proves you wrong. In Acts chapter 14, Paul and Barnabas were worshipped as incarnations of Greek gods (Zeus and Hermes) because they got a crippled man to walk. Even now legends seem to crop up within a few days of a major event--such as the stories of people surviving the fall of the WTC by floating down on debris.


Do you throw out your trust in science just because science books or theories end up having errors in them?

Science has a method that is designed to weed out the errors that are known to occur--as you say, humans are fallible, which is why scientific claims must be tested by verifying predictions, and opening the hypotheses to falsification. You refuse to open your beliefs to falsification.

[Jinto]

Do you throw out your trust in science just because science books or theories end up having errors in them? Humans are fallible, and for an unbeliever - taking the translations of the Bible as perfectly inerrant is a poor approach at trying to understand God. Its accurate enough for its purpose.

No, but if a particular "science" textbook consistently makes galring erros, then I throw out that textbook. The thing is though, science is true regardless of what the textbooks say. Why? Because science is based on observations of the outside world. If I don't believe my astronomy textbook, then I can haul out my telescope on a clear night and check the observations for myself. If I don't believe my biology textbook, then I can can grab my microscope and petri dish and do the experiments myself. If I don't believe my geology textbook, then I can hike over to the nearest fault line, grab some rock samples, and analyze them myself. That's the thing - science is independently verifiable. But if I don't trust the bible, then what do I appeal to? God? Sorry, but he hasn't spoken to me. Your religion depends on the assumption that the bible is true. And here's the thing Magus55 - the hypocrisy of many Christians is tremendous. They claim when faced with overwhelming evidence that "well, okay, there are some parts in the bible that are not literal truth, but Genesis still is." You are willing to concede that maybe the disciples were mistaken in their observations, while parts of the bible like Genesis - which none of the disciples or prophets COULD have observed - must be inerrant, as opposed to simply fabricated. And they can't point to anything outside the bible that will independently verify it in the areas that are contested. Sorry Magus, but if you're going to claim divine inspiration for any part of the bible, you really have to show something divine there, and there is nothing - nothing - in the bible that could not have been divised by men.

[Clutch]

Magus: If God says Adam will die from eating from the Tree, obviously not eating from it means He won't die.

Rick: No, {if A, then B} does not mean {if not-A, then not-B}. Rick, well-spotted. I was so busy pointing out the complete lack of principle in Magus's interpretations that I overlooked his use of one of the most basic fallacies. It's called denying the antecedent; it's on the 1st year Critical Thinking exam I'm giving in a couple of days.

Magus: F.

[Kosh]

Actually Magus, the Bible is a reverse IQ/entry test! When you die and get to the pearly gates, they look you up a book and say "Oh man, I can't believe you fell for that crap! Satan, here's another one for you!"

:D

[davidH]

'In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.'

In thinking about the above verse, I've realised that the meaning of the verse actually depends on where you take a pause when reading it - or where you put the comma (,).

Let me explain: The KJV doesn't insert a comma anywhere.

If you take a pause after the 'thereof' then translated it reads like this:

In the day that thou eatest of the fruit that was mentioned before, you will surely die.

The thereof in this case refers to the verse before where God is talking about the fruit on the tree.

However consider this:

In the day that thou eatest, of the eating you shalt surely die.

In this case the word 'thereof' refers to the eating and not to the fruit.
The word thereof, means, 'of which' or 'because of this'.

Dictionary results:

1. Of or concerning this, that, or it.
2. of or about the thing just mentioned:

http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict

Thereof \There*of"\, adv.
Of that or this.

In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely
die. --Gen. ii. 17.

Found the above definition - interesting to see where they have put the comma - when infact the KJV doesnt have one.

However that doesn't afffect my first question to you:

The term 'in the day' is it wrongly translated 'when' in the NIV?

In answer to my last post, I got the reply:

In the day = On the day

Are you sure? I maintain that 'in the day' was an expression for 'when' - just as it is translated in the NIV.

Let me put it another way - can 'in the day' mean 'when'?

However, going to the Hebrew is the place to go - to see exactly what it does say - test if the KJV is correct.

The term for day, Yowm, can mean a day but also a period of time - the context determines the meaning.
Interesting also about the phrase, ' thou shalt die'. Literally translated in the Hebrew it reads dying thou shalt die.

I suppose that is the verse that the alternative meaning is shown through. ie, the bodies began physically dying and their spiritual relationship with God die - as their sin separated him from them.

However true though this may be, unless you can should me that the term 'For in the day that thou eatest' doesn't mean 'when you eat the fruit' I will stick with it.

[Tabula_rasa]

Question, davidH.

What is the interpretation you have of "in the day ye eat thereof" in the reading of Gen.3 4-5?

Gen.3 4-5 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Does that mean today, tomorrow or some unspecified time in the future? IIRC, it meant today.

Tabula_rasa

[Goliath]

Magus55,



God said, if you do eat from this tree - you will die ( i.e, will no longer live forever). Use that common sense. If God says Adam will die from eating from the Tree, obviously not eating from it means He won't die.



No, this does NOT follow. If an implication P==>Q is true (where P and Q are propositions), then it need not follow that ~P==>~Q (where ~P is the negation of P). Or, in other words, (P==>Q)==>(~P==>~Q) is not a tautology.

So, let P be the proposition "You will eat this fruit," and let Q be the proposition "You will die." Assuming P==>Q ("If you eat this fruit, then you will die") is true, it does not follow that ~P==>~Q ("If you do not eat this fruit, then you won't die") is true.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Edited to say: Oops, Dr. Rick beat me to this! That's what I get for reading a post in the middle of a 3-page thread and then responding without reading the rest of it.

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Magus55
You keep thinking that... Must please your atheistic mind to think you know a contradiction of something that doesn't even exist to you. :rolleyes:

Why does the nonexistence matter to the question of contradictions?

The fact that something doesn't exist does not prevent a person from spotting contradictions in claims made about that something.

Can you figure it out yourself, or do we have to draw you a picture?

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Magus55
Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of most of the places and events in the Bible.


Um, no. It does not.

Mentioning a bunch of place names and foreign rulers is not proof that any of the specific events in the bible ever occurred.

The Illiad and the Oddysey both mention real place names and rulers. By your logic, we also have to accept their stories of gods, demons and monsters, since the author got a few place names correct.

[Asha'man]

Originally posted by Magus55
Well, first here is an explanation for the different geneologies.

http://www.carm.org/diff/2geneologies.htm

You may not like the explanation, but its one nonetheless.

This explanation fails utterly, in my opinion. It claims that the genealogy in Luke was that of Mary, not Joseph. However, if you actually read the genealogy in Luke, you will find that Mary isn’t named. The text is therefore incorrect, no matter how you read it.

Since the plain reading of the text is invalid, is it possible that an alternate interpretation is justified? Again, I don’t think so.

Jewish genealogies never mentioned the female line, because the ancient Jews were not even aware that such a thing existed. It was well known that men provided the “seed,” but the existence of the human female egg was unknown until modern times. Women provided nothing but a place to plant the seed and let it grow, according to the best knowledge of the time. You cannot invoke one ancient cultural tradition for not naming a woman unless introduced properly, and then utterly ignore the other tradition that says genealogies don’t include women.

This explanation also fails for another reason: we know that Mary was a Levite, because of a reference to one of her relatives. The genealogy in Luke therefore cannot refer to Mary, unless there is yet another error in the gospels.

[gilly54]

A very polite poster, TsengTsu, offers this explanation of the contradictions in question 5 of the Easter quiz:

As far as the men being angels, I doubt this is much of a stretch. In the first instance in Mark the young man is wearing white and upon seeing him the women 'were amazed'. The Greek for the garmet he is wearing clearly indicates the clothing of angels, dazzling and brilliant from whiteness. The instance in Luke uses a different term but also denotes this 'dazzling apparel'. Also the women 'were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground'. Not something most women would do for two ordinary men.

Glowing god and dazzling angels. Maybe we were visited by aliens that had bioluminescent properties. That's my explanation for Magus' and Tseng's explanation. It makes just as much sense, doesn't it? No?, well, try to prove my explanation wrong!:p There are lots of books written by people who have interviewed people who have SEEN these aliens and they say they are telling the TRUTH, no metaphorical or apological (is that a word?) explanations either! These are REAL EYE-WITNESS ACCOUNTS, unlike the Gospels. These people saw these aliens IN OUR LIFETIME! No telling and re-telling and re-re-telling of a story that gets embellished each time it is told. Maybe the Raelians are on to something. They dress in white flowing robes, just like the angels do! I don't think they glow though. That only happens after they've been cloned a few times...

Sorry for sidestepping the thread a bit:D

[Answerer]

Archeology prove bible? Thats what I heard millions of times but in reality, disappointment rules if one had the courage to find out. Below are some links that might help those who are willing to help themselves:


http://www.truthbeknown.com/biblemyth.htm

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/intro.shtml

http://www.abbc.com/islam/english/books/jewhis/jewhis3.htm


Anyway, my purpose is not to convince Magus55 otherwise. Rather I'm here to show to you guys how stubborn a person can be.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Magus55]

Originally posted by Answerer
Archeology prove bible? Thats what I heard millions of times but in reality, disappointment rules if one had the courage to find out. Below are some links that might help those who are willing to help themselves:


http://www.truthbeknown.com/biblemyth.htm

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/intro.shtml

http://www.abbc.com/islam/english/books/jewhis/jewhis3.htm


Anyway, my purpose is not to convince Magus55 otherwise. Rather I'm here to show to you guys how stubborn a person can be.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Lol, read parts of the infidels link. Same dumb points that SAB makes, that have been refuted ( and even some dumber ones like where did God reside before Creation - wth - how is that an absurdity? He isn't material, He either stayed in Heaven or just was - He doesn't need a house). Sorry, very very poor attempt at disproving the Bible - just as bad as SAB, but thanks for playing!

Truthbeknown has no references. Its just one persons opinion. All it says is this is wrong, this is wrong, God's not real, blah blah blah. No evidence, no proof, no claims from any actual archaeologists ( who btw, have found the ruins of Soddom and Gomorrah). Iv'e heard this crap before - try something a little more convincing next time?

[keyser_soze]

Originally posted by Magus55
Truthbeknown has no references. Its just one persons opinion. All it says is this is wrong, this is wrong, God's not real, blah blah blah. No evidence, no proof, no claims from any actual archaeologists ( who btw, have found the ruins of Soddom and Gomorrah). Iv'e heard this crap before - try something a little more convincing next time? [/B]

Irony meter on maximum....:banghead:

[Secular Pinoy]

I think it's time for Magus to take the Easter Challenge (http://www.ffrf.org/lfif/stone.html).

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Magus55
No evidence, no proof, no claims from any actual archaeologists ( who btw, have found the ruins of Soddom and Gomorrah).


Uh, no. They have not.

But you're more than welcome to try and prove that.

[Silent Dave]

Originally posted by Magus55
It would take hell freezing over for an atheist to believe in and worship the Christian God, so whats the difference?

We are very much alike in that both are firm in their beliefs.

You know, it's funny how Christians manipulate reality like that -- atheist-to-Christian conversions either happen when hell freezes over, or happen all the time, depending on the specific argument being made at a given moment.


Dave

[Answerer]

Originally posted by Magus55
Lol, read parts of the infidels link. Same dumb points that SAB makes, that have been refuted ( and even some dumber ones like where did God reside before Creation - wth - how is that an absurdity? He isn't material, He either stayed in Heaven or just was - He doesn't need a house). Sorry, very very poor attempt at disproving the Bible - just as bad as SAB, but thanks for playing!

Truthbeknown has no references. Its just one persons opinion. All it says is this is wrong, this is wrong, God's not real, blah blah blah. No evidence, no proof, no claims from any actual archaeologists ( who btw, have found the ruins of Soddom and Gomorrah). Iv'e heard this crap before - try something a little more convincing next time?

The above is the proof of my reasons for not trying to convince Magus55 of anything. Please look at the way he is arguing and refer to my purpose in the previous post.

:boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo:

[Clutch]

Magus, where ya hiding?

Two points are on the table: (1) That you've first explicitly rejected and then explicitly insisted upon the acceptability of filling in details not in the strict letter of Genesis; (2) That your argument for filling in the particular details you want was an elementary fallacy.

Have you any intellectual integrity, or do you just plan on fleeing back to a fundy forum and complaining about the dirty tricks of atheists... like, pointing out the gross defects in your reasoning? Or the third option: sticking around here, but pretending none of this ever happened...

[Koyaanisqatsi]

There was just too much nonsense to wade through, but I think this will suffice as an example:

Originally posted by Magus: Now, yes i get what you are saying, but i still think its a poor reason to discredit God. Say God did let humans write the Bible basically on their own. God was involved in it since it is primarily about Him, but suppose the contradictions are there due to human writing error.

Ok. That means that it's in error. Which means you can't possibly know what's not in error, including anything written decades later that references an earlier work, such as the synoptics.... More later.

MORE: How does that discredit God?

Which god? The god written in error about? Or are you talking about Allah, for which no contradictions in his inspired writings exist (he typed, baitedly)?

MORE: You have to look at the overall picture.

Ok. The overall picture, according to you, is that we have nothing to base a belief upon, but some 24,000 errant copies of Christian mythology due to copyist errors.

So, which is the one you based your beliefs on? The "original?" When did you read the "original?"

Oh, that's right, you have "faith" that the original was inerrant based on the teachings of all of the errant copies....
:rolleyes:

MORE: Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of most of the places and events in the Bible.

No, it does not. It may confirm the places, but it is categorically impossible for archeology to confirm the historical accuracy of the events in the bible, including the flood.

That's what a geologist would study, not an archeologist.

If you're going to employ fallacious rationalizations to support your mythology, make sure you do it with the right discipline at least.

MORE: Its irrational to assume the Apostles were just making it up since they did go from being cowards in hiding, to boldly proclaiming Jesus' truth, only to end up dying in very nasty ways.

I see. So, considering the fact that most theologians consider Mark to have been the first of the synoptics and that others simply rewrote their own versions based on Mark (and the controversial Sayings Gospel Q) then we have "apostles" making up stories based on an already made up story.

And this attests to you being able to base your beliefs on something verifiable how?

MORE: Christianity succeeded, which it never would have done if it was a complete fairy tale. Legends don't start that fast.

"That fast?" I can start a legend right now. It happend to me just the other day...

And you're right. Nobody in that region believed in anything so far fetched as "deities" or "prophets" or "messiahs" or "gods" for that matter. None of those silly fairy tales about the Gods of Olympus, for example, were ever believed, right? And Yahweh was a complete wash out in the region. Judaism didn't succeed, right, since it was a complete fairy tale?

MORE: So it is reasonable to assume the Apostles were telling the truth and described what they saw and heard.

You find that "reasonable" do you? So the "apostles" saw and heard Jesus' confrontation with the Devil in the wilderness, did they? Or did they just take scrupulous notes when he told them all about it so that forty years later one of them ("Mark" no less) could write it down in full.

Oh, right, he was blessed with divine inspiration, just none of the holy men who copied his work word for word did, because god has a statute of limitations when it comes to the copies (i.e., the historical accuracy to be handed down from generation to generation), right?

The only thing that mattered to god, the omniscient, capable of foreseeing all of this, was to make damn sure that nothing he inspired in the first place (accept for that magical first draft, of course) would be coherent or consistent!

Because god's just like that. Inspires only one or maybe two authors and none of the rest so that in the end no one can ever be sure of what was written!

Oh, I get it! Faith, again! Of course! That's why the scriptures all proclaim that these words are inspired by god and that anyone who changes the words or the meaning will acrue god's wrath, because they were all non-inspired copies of what god really meant to say.

Wait. How do we know that? Oh, right, because the errant copies of errant copies of errant copies tell us that this is so and we can use "common sense" to simply blindly assume that everything that's wrong in the bible is just the result of god's lapse in judgement.

So, great, we have a whole collection of completely unverifiable errors and flat out contradictions to learn of the omniscience of Yahweh. I mean, Jesus. I mean Yahweh. I mean, I AM, I AM.

That's a great formula. Let me see if I can do it, too....

The Great and Powerful Too RAH Loo has inspired these words and these words are therefore true, because he inspired them, but if anyone should doubt these words or compare them to other words somebody else who claims to have been Too RAH Loo inspired, then just accept that the Great and Powerful Too RAH Loo exists and stuff he inspired isn't that reliable and has a very short shelf life.

Which is to say, of course, that this sentence is a lie in that it is telling the only truth; the truth that everything is a lie, so sayeth either me or the Great and Powerful Too RAH Loo, who also, by the way, like Paul, had a big hang up about marrying only one person, so you should all behave as if single and come out to kareoke night on Tuesdays (and, oh yeah, the "uncut" among you get half off on margaritas; my treat girls).

Wow, that's great. Now all I have to do is instruct you to read it in the presuppositional context that the GAPTRL already exists and you've proved that this mere copy of a copy of a copy does not mean that the GAPTRL doesn't exist, right?

Assume he exists in order to assume he exists and you will have assumed that he exists. Q.E.D., right?

It's just common sense to assume something exists because something tells you to assume something exists based on the fact that no assumptions are necessary once you make that initial assumption, right?

I mean, why else would somebody write all that stuff down over and over and over again, in scrupulous, oh one might say, "god fearing," ways in order to make sure that the one true GAPTRL's actual words were passed down from generation to generation in an ultimately errant manner?

It's imperative, after all, that no one believe the bible as it is written! That's the whole point of writing it in the first place! To insure confusion so that the world comes to the GAPTRL of their own free will, right?

(relaxe; around here, mockery is the sincerest form of analogical deconstruction to illustrate incontrivertable flaws in your "reasoning")

MORE: Whether there are errors or not, doesn't meant God doesn't exist,

If I gave you the books of the GAPTRL and within them the authors all stated, "This is the testament to the supreme existence of the GAPTRL, who is the way and the light and the only means to salvation" and you found repeated contradictions and outright fantasies within, wouldn't you then conclude that no such mythological creature exists?

If not, then let me tell you about a unique opportunity that has nothing to do with these silly boards and everything to do with your financial future and salvation. One word. "Bridge." The Brooklyn Bridge. Ok, two words, but with just a modest sum, I am authorized to sell you (and only you, so tell no one), not just the Brooklyn Bridge but also the very torch of Lady Liberty! You got an ATM nearby...?

MORE: or the accounts of Jesus weren't real, it just means humans completely wrote it the best they could with the knowledge and writing ability they had at the time, and there are bound to be a few errors or discrepancies.

A "few?" Like complete disagreement on the death and resurrection of the Son of God?

Oh, wait, sorry, that doesn't count since it has been rather convincingly established that only one author wrote that story and the others just made up their own versions based on the first one.

MORE: Do you throw out your trust in science just because science books or theories end up having errors in them?

If you mean, do you throw out the books containing scientific errors, yes, you do. That's the purpose of science; it's dynamic and ever changing, unlike your beliefs, which were closed two thousand years ago.

MORE: Humans are fallible

God is (allegedly) not. Who inspired the bible? Or are you saying that free will intervened and only those who "truly believed" copied correctly?

MORE:and for an unbeliever - taking the translations of the Bible as perfectly inerrant is a poor approach at trying to understand God. Its accurate enough for its purpose.

"Accurate enough for its purpose," eh? And the purpose being salvation of one's immortal soul from the "second death;" i.e., the burning lake of hellfire where no less a personage as Satan burns for all eternity, right?

It's funny you should say that since the Gospel of Thomas (considered to be the actual first teaches, in essence, that you need no one to act as an intermediary between yourself and god. But, I guess that whole book was errant, right?

So, "accurate enough for its purpose..." Hmmmm. What would that mean? That a guy named Jesus--a rabbi, no less--taught people to stop throwing stones? Oh, I know! That only through him could one reach god, directly contradicting that whole errant Gospel of Thomas nonsense.

Who ever thought that was anything anyway, right? :rolleyes:

No, you're absolutely right. When assuming something exists, one must simply assume something exists and then go to great lengths to make sure everything about that something fits the initial assumption, otherwise you might be accused of using your brain; you know, like the way you keep accusing all of us of not doing?

[Koyaanisqatsi]

By the way, has anyone else noted the irony of the OP: The Mindset of Rationalizing Away Bible Contradictions?

[Secular Pinoy]

Duly noted, Koy. :D

[Roland]

A clear contradiction occurs between Luke's account of Jesus' first appearance to the disciples after his resurrection and John's account.

Luke 24:33 states that "the eleven" were present when Jesus appeared and showed his wounds to them.

John 20:24, in dealing with the same incident, flatly states that Thomas was absent from the occasion.

I know that Jesus is supposed to be able to be in two places at once. But is Thomas?

[Magus55]

Originally posted by Roland
A clear contradiction occurs between Luke's account of Jesus' first appearance to the disciples after his resurrection and John's account.

Luke 24:33 states that "the eleven" were present when Jesus appeared and showed his wounds to them.

John 20:24, in dealing with the same incident, flatly states that Thomas was absent from the occasion.

I know that Jesus is supposed to be able to be in two places at once. But is Thomas? Um, 12 Apostles, one missing ( Thomas) = eleven

[Treacle Worshipper]

Originally posted by Magus55
Um, 12 Apostles, one missing ( Thomas) = eleven

Magus, you weren't thinking. I've seen you do much better than this.
12 apostles, one dead (Judas) = eleven in total.
12 apostles, one dead, one missing = ten
TW

[Roland]

Thanks, Treacle.

I didn't think I would have to mention that fact in my original post.

[Treacle Worshipper]

Originally posted by Roland
Thanks, Treacle.

I didn't think I would have to mention that fact in my original post.

You're welcome. I think Magus is a fairly recent convert to Xnity, so his misstep is understandable.
TW

[davidH]

Tabula_rasa,

Gen.3 4-5 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Does that mean today, tomorrow or some unspecified time in the future?

IIRC, it meant today.

That is not the answer to my question;

I answered the 'contradiction' from the NIV version which uses the word 'when' in place for 'in the day'.

Go back to my last post and read it.

The term 'for in the day' means 'when'. For example using what you have written above:

For God doth know that when you eat thereof, then your eyes will be opened....

It is exactly the same meaning - exactly the same as the last verse except u put in 'your eyes will be opened' in the place of 'death'.

But the point you are trying to make is that because Adam and Eve's eyes were opened on the very same day - that God must have been lying since they didn't die on the very same day.

The point I am trying to make is that by saying what God did - if Adam and Eve did die on the same day he would also have been telling the truth as if they had died when they did.

The term 'in the day' refers only to the time when they eat the fruit - and doesn't carry to mean their time of death.

I presume since no one else is debating apart from one person that they know this to be the case. Don't try to force the verse to say something that it doesn't.

'For in the day you eat of the fruit (ie. WHEN you eat of the fruit) you will surely die.'
My first answer using the NIV version stands.


Moving on to something else I read:

A clear contradiction occurs between Luke's account of Jesus' first appearance to the disciples after his resurrection and John's account.

Luke 24:33 states that "the eleven" were present when Jesus appeared and showed his wounds to them.

John 20:24, in dealing with the same incident, flatly states that Thomas was absent from the occasion.

I know that Jesus is supposed to be able to be in two places at once. But is Thomas?

Sure Magnus made a mistake but this doesn't affect what he was attempting to show because there is no contradiction here, you have only made one out of it (and that is a generous statement). And the contradiction that you,Roland, have brought up in actual fact shows that you were not thinking or have not even examined it for yourself when you wrote it.

You are correct - it is the same event, and when the 2 disciples on the road to Emmaus did arrive back in Jerusalem, the 'Eleven' and those with them are said to be present.

But what is not stated is that the Eleven were present when Jesus appeared. - Am I correct in saying this?

All that is said, is that they were all there when the disciples arrived back.

It's written that 'while they were still discussing these things Jesus appeared to them'.
Who knows the length of time after they arrived that Jesus appeared - 30mins? 2hrs? 5hrs?
All we know is that they were still discussing when he appeared.

And the passage in John that you mentioned tells us that Thomas
was not present when Jesus appeared. This is true, he was only present when the disciples arrived back from Emmaus, and so must have left.

How you can serious expect to see this as a contradiction I have no idea.

1. There is no passage that says Thomas, or even the Eleven were present when Jesus appeared.

How then can you say that Thomas was present, and the passage in John must be wrong?! When in actual fact it shows that Thomas must have left.

I am sure that you will agree with me Roland and Treacle Worshipper, that there is no contradiction here at all.
For those of you that which to persue this any further and say that it is not possible for Thomas to have left because all the disciples were together with the doors locked for fear of the Jews.

It makes no difference whatsoever - Thomas is said to have not been there when Jesus came.

Hence the obvious conclusion in looking at the 2 passages is that Thomas must have left between the time when the disciples arrived and Jesus appearing.

Or maybe the conclusion you will draw is that the 2 passages must obviously contradict one another :banghead:

If there is no other Athiest on this forum that can come on and say that what I am saying is true about this 'contradiction' then I seriously dispair.

If anyone has any doubts about this, then I ask that some atheist on this board that does something to do with History come forward and tell truthfully whether this would cause the reliabilty between John and Luke to be questioned.

Edited to put something in Bold

[Roland]

David -

That may be the obvious conclusion to you, but I think it is illogical in the extreme. First of all, why would Luke write it AS IF the eleven disciples were there? I guess you expect Luke to keep saying over and over again throughout the story "the eleven, the eleven, the eleven." Yet, what writer writes like that? Once he said "the eleven" once there is no reason to repeat it, since all the readers will naturally assume that the eleven are still there.

And do you seriously think it would take that much time for those two guys to tell such a simple story?

And do you seriously think that Thomas - or anyone for that matter - would leave at such a time? The guys are only telling the disciples that they saw Jesus! Give me a break.

In addition, Mark 16: 14 also says that Jesus appeared to the 11 and "rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen." It seems to me this perfectly supports Luke's view.

It's obvious that John threw in that part about Thomas to make a point about "faith."

The fact is that Luke says "the eleven" were there. You have no justification for arguing that Thomas "left" other than the fact that you have to do so in order to keep it in line with John.

If John didn't exist and someone tried to argue that Thomas was not there, you would jump up and say, "Look, Luke 32:33 explicitly states he WAS there." It just goes to show that your argument is based on sand.

[Roland]

Take a look at Luke's version of the event and tell me honestly that he expects us NOT to see Thomas as present.


[33] And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem; and THEY FOUND THE ELEVEN GATHERED TOGETHER and those who were with them,
[34] who said, "The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!"
[35] Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread.
[36] AS THEY WERE SAYING THIS, Jesus himself stood among them.
[37] But they were startled and frightened, and supposed that they saw a spirit.
[38] And he said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do questionings rise in your hearts?
[39] See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have."
[41] And while they still disbelieved for joy, and wondered, he said to them, "Have you anything here to eat?"
[42] They gave him a piece of broiled fish,
[43] and he took it and ate before them.
[44] Then he said to them, "These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled."
[45] Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures,
[46] and said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead,
[47] and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
[48] You are witnesses of these things.
[49] And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high."
[50] Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them.
[51] While he blessed them, he parted from them, and was carried up into heaven.
[52] And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy,
[53] and were continually in the temple blessing God.

The "them" in verse 36 needs an antecedent. And what is that antecedent? "The eleven gathered together and those who were with them."

[Jack the Bodiless]

On the subject of Genesis and the Forbidden Fruit:

Sure, it's possible to resolve the contradiction. We have done it already. God LIED to stop Adam and Eve eating the fruit, but they ate it anyhow. Why not simply read the story as the author evidently intended it to be read?

Consider:
Genesis 3:22-23 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
Obviously, thanks to the guidance of the Serpent, humans became more powerful than the gods intended, taking powers that only the gods were supposed to have, and they were therefore ejected from Eden specifically because of God's fear that they would gain further forbidden powers.

This is the Prometheus myth, with the Serpent as Prometheus.

Again, this is clear:
Genesis 3:4-5 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
And, sure enough, they did NOT die, and their eyes WERE opened!

There is no need for these verbal gymnastics. The story is clear and straightforward.

It was not the intention of the author to portray God as a "nice guy", and he did not: that concept came much later (and contradicts much of the OT, not just this). This God is simply a great power to be feared.

[davidH]

I apologise for being away for so long.

Ok, Roland, lets look at the verses you have given.


[33] And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem; and THEY FOUND THE ELEVEN GATHERED TOGETHER ,
and those who were with them. (Bold my emphasis)
[34] who said, "The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!"

[35] Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread.

[36] AS THEY WERE SAYING THIS, Jesus himself stood among them.


Roland, you are implying that the 'as they were saying this' refers to the 'the Lord has risen indeed and has appeared to Simon'. It does not - it refers to while they were explaining and telling their stories to everyone that was present - as the NIV translation saying - 'discussing' and while they were still doing this Jesus appeared.

Again, the translation you used says that the Eleven were present whenever the disciples arrived - but It does not say they were there whenever Jesus appeared - if it did then there would be a contradiction.
Since the Bible doesn't say that the Eleven were present, but says Thomas was absent - I said that the obvious conclusion was that Thomas had left, sometime after the disciples had arrived and before Jesus appeared. Prehaps he went out to get food or something for the two disciples that had arrived - I don't know, but I do know; there is no contradiction at all.

To this you replied:

That may be the obvious conclusion to you, but I think it is illogical in the extreme.

Really? Illogical in the extreme!! I challenge anybody else reading this to stand with you on this one Roland.
Ok, lets see why you say it's extremely illogical.

First of all, why would Luke write it AS IF the eleven disciples were there?

I guess you expect Luke to keep saying over and over again throughout the story "the eleven, the eleven, the eleven." Yet, what writer writes like that?
Once he said "the eleven" once there is no reason to repeat it, since all the readers will naturally assume that the eleven are still there.

Bingo - in your own words 'all the readers will naturally ASSUME that the eleven are still there.

Exactly - they will assume, just like you assume. There is no basis for the contradiction that you see here, apart from you assuming that Thomas must have still been present.

Well, doesn't John's account throw your assumption out the window? It does, because he states as fact, that Thomas wasn't present.

Now the only LOGICAL thing to assume is that THOMAS MUST HAVE LEFT

It is rather your point that is illogical in the extreme - because you hold your first assumption as fact - and then say John is wrong!!

Come on Roland, there is no contradiction here. I'm not here to celebrate a victory, I just don't want people believing there is a contradiction where there is none.

But for completness I will answer the rest of your questions:

And do you seriously think it would take that much time for those two guys to tell such a simple story?

I wasn't there to hear their story and discussions, and neither were you. To say how long it took them is just another assumption. All I know from a fact in John's gospel is that it was long enough for Thomas to have left.

And do you seriously think that Thomas - or anyone for that matter - would leave at such a time? The guys are only telling the disciples that they saw Jesus! Give me a break.

What I think makes no difference - John says that Thomas wasn't there when Jesus appeared.

v24 'But Thomas one of the twelve, called Didymus was not with them WHEN JESUS CAME.'

He could have gone out to get food for the 2 disciples after their journey, but a more likely reason can be found in Thomas' reaction to the other apostles telling him about him missing Jesus that evening.

But he said to them, 'Except I see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.'

This was even the other disciples that were with Jesus telling him - imagine what he thought when the 2 disciples that weren't one of the eleven coming in with the story. My view is that he was sick of all the stories people were telling - to him they were making them up and he was sick of it. My guess is that he was sick and tired of it and walked out.
But my view makes no difference - whatever happened he had left and Luke never said the Eleven were present when Jesus appeared only when the 2 disciples arrived.

The fact is that Luke says "the eleven" were there. You have no justification for arguing that Thomas "left" other than the fact that you have to do so in order to keep it in line with John.

Again from your own words you said this was only an assumption that the reader would make, John's account flattens this assumption. You yourself said that John only put this in to put in a point about faith, Luke chose not to put it in - whatever his reasons were, they couldn't write everything (as John says).

Again Luke never says the eleven were there when Jesus appeared and you only assume this and take your assumption as fact and then try and show a contradiction?

If John didn't exist and someone tried to argue that Thomas was not there, you would jump up and say, "Look, Luke 32:33 explicitly states he WAS there." It just goes to show that your argument is based on sand.

No, I wouldn't. I wouldn't because it doesn't say that not even explicitly. If nothing else had been written, I would have like you - assumed - that Thomas would still have been there. It would be pointless arguing the point because neither would have anything to back it up.

The "them" in verse 36 needs an antecedent. And what is that antecedent? "The eleven gathered together and those who were with them."

No, the antecedent 'them' all those present in the room that Jesus appeared before. This is the obvious view - all the disciples that were present.

But again as I mentioned before I addressed your points - your contradiction is all an assumption. The fact that John records as fact that Thomas was absent should in any logical thinker, take presedence over any assumptions that he had presently made. - Surely you see that?

I'm just trying to show that this isn't a contradiction at all, but is, whenever you take an assumption over fact and use your assumption as a fact to contradict a fact.

I don't know who told you this was a contradiction but I hope that you can see that it isn't.

Will try and be back soon this time.

[Clutch]

Exactly - they will assume, just like you assume. There is no basis for the contradiction that you see here, apart from you assuming that Thomas must have still been present. This is "the mindset" in action. What a desperate attempt to avoid contradiction!

Of course, this sort of thing is exactly why I advise against trying to pin logical contradictions on scripture; you run into apologists so divorced from reason that it's like trying to nail jelly to the wall.

Consider an example.

A: "Smith was in the house when the bomb exploded, killing everyone inside."

B: "Smith was unharmed."

Apologist resolution: Oh, well, don't be silly. There's no contradiction here! A doesn't say inside what everyone was killed. Smith was inside the house, but for all we know, what A really meant was that everyone inside the greenhouse was killed. Now, you may assume from the language that the bomb was inside the house, and that everyone inside the house was killed... but that's an assumption, isn't it?

Transplanted to any other domain of inquiry, this sort of perverse logic-chopping would be transparent... even to apologists.

[davidH]

Clutch, you make no reference to the actual passage in question, not to mention that even so I can see absolutely no parallel to the passage in question.

You know I am right, so why don't you actually help Roland by telling him so.

This is "the mindset" in action. What a desperate attempt to avoid contradiction!

Lol, I'm sure you find that there is nothing desperate about it - especially if you had read this where we started off discussing it.
Rather - what a desperate attempt to confuse the issue, with something that doesn't have any bearing on the passage in question. :banghead:

Lol, lets just read this:

Of course, this sort of thing is exactly why I advise against trying to pin logical contradictions on scripture; you run into apologists so divorced from reason that it's like trying to nail jelly to the wall.

Good one - so what then, you give all the illogical ones?! Or maybe you give none at all.

Maybe you call me divorced from reason - but you have done nothing to show that - you haven't even shown where my reasoning has gone wrong. Maybe that's because my reasoning has not gone wrong - and that was just a desperate attempt to keep the validity of the 'contradiction'.

Transplanted to any other domain of inquiry, this sort of perverse logic-chopping would be transparent... even to apologists.

Your example - yes. But the Bible passage in question is nothing like that at all!! Have you even read it?

[Clutch]

I can see absolutely no parallel to the passage in question. I am certainly not prepared to dispute your claim that you don't grasp the parallel; indeed, I find this very plausible.

I was explicit in saying that trying to pin contradictions on someone prepared to do any mental gymnastics, no matter how embarrassing, is pointless. I have defended that idea since before your presence here. So, yes, I stipulate that you cannot be forced to admit defeat on the point by any application of reason. My point was simply that, by your standards, no narrative contains contradictions -- not even the one I offered. Set the bar for coherence low enough, and scripture will clear it. So what?

[davidH]

Back up your words Clutch.

Go back to my last post on the subject and go through it and point out to me were I 'exchange reason for madness'.

Seriously point it out to me.

I was explicit in saying that trying to pin contradictions on someone prepared to do any mental gymnastics, no matter how embarrassing, is pointless.

Go on Clutch I challenge you to point out in my last post where I did my mental gymnastics, and show me why they were mental gymnastics. Read from page 3 everything that Roland and I have been discussing concerning this passage.

All you could do is take me using the word 'assumption' - even though that is exactly what was being done - and then without giving any examples at all - accuse me of doing mental gymnastics.

I rather find it the reverse - it is you that is embarrassing yourself.

[Roland]

Mark 16:14 Afterward he appeared TO THE ELEVEN themselves as they sat at table; and he upbraided them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen.

It sounds a lot like Luke's version of the story to me.

Moreover, Matthew 28:16-17 has Jesus appearing to the eleven apostles on a mountain in Galillee and some still not believing. Care to speculate when that occurred?

The key thing is that Bible literalists, ironically, have no repsect for the individual texts as written. It's the same reason they can claim with a straight face that Matthew's account of Mary Magdalene's actions on Easter morning doesn't contradict John's account of her actions. In the first she is told by the angel that Jesus has risen. In the second, she is told no such thing, but believes Jesus' body has been stolen.

Their solution? To cull from Mark and Luke and claim that there were other women present, so Mary could have drifted off before the angel told them what had happened even though Matthew only cites two people in his version (an awful lot of characters seem to drift noiselessly out of the scenes in their harmonized accounts). Thus, as written, Matthew clearly intends the reader to see Mary M. being talked to by the angel. It doesn't matter to the "literalist" if the reasoning they come up with makes mincemeat out of Matthew's account. The key thing is to insure that NO CONTRADICTION BE FOUND.

I guess as long as it doesn't specifically state "The angel told Mary Magdelene..." that the Bible literalist is somehow let off the hook. But I sure wouldn't want to have to defend reasoning like that - or have to believe in the "inerrancy" of something on such flimsy grounds.

[Kosh]

Originally posted by davidH
Back up your words Clutch.
...
Go on Clutch I challenge you to point out in my last post where I did my mental gymnastics, and show me why they were mental gymnastics. Read from page 3 everything that Roland and I have been discussing concerning this passage.


I'll have to side with Clutch. "Mental Gymnastics" is a pretty good description of what you've always done here, witness your ridiculous attempt to prove the Exodus as history last year!

(I apologize ahead of time for stirring up that reminder, which now probably lead to another futile attempt to prove the Exodus).

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Let's compare and contrast, shall we? Note the timelines.

First, John's version (all of the following quotes will be from the NIV to avoid any confusion; bold is my own emphasis): 17 Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' "
18 Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: "I have seen the Lord!" And she told them that he had said these things to her.

Jesus Appears to His Disciples

19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
21 Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

Jesus Appears to Thomas

24 Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!"
But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."
28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

Now from Luke:1 On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb.

...

13 Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem. 14 They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. 15 As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them...

28 As they approached the village to which they were going, Jesus acted as if he were going farther. 29 But they urged him strongly, "Stay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over." So he went in to stay with them.
30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. 32 They asked each other, "Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?"
33 They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem [a seven mile trip, so presume the next day]. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together 34 and saying, "It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon." 35 Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread.

Got it so far? All of this happened at least the night before (even if they could all walk seven miles overnight).

The bread is broken the night before (the night of Mary and Peter having gone to the tomb). Then they "found the eleven and those with them and the two told what had happened on the way. Then what happens?

36 While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you."
37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."
40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet.

Now, according to John, this second meeting happens a week later. Remember? It's almost identical: 26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."

Identical concepts (see me, touch me, feel me, believe me...), even to the repetitioin of locked doors, except John's version has this happening a week after the day Mary and Peter go to the tomb and a week after the almost identical scene (minus Didymus) is expressed in the house.

But how does Luke end his narrative?

...49 I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high."

The Ascension

50 When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. 51 While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven. 52 Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. 53 And they stayed continually at the temple, praising God.

No mention of Dydimus or a week passing at all. The events happen the night of and the next day and then he leads them to Bethany Adjacent and then, presumably, ascends bodily into "heaven" (a ludicrous proposition at best, since they would have witnessed a human body ascend into outer space in this manner).

The referrences are always to "them" and "they" with particular and repetive insistence that the apostels are all there at the end.

Luke has all of these events happening within a two or three day time (assuming a day to travel to "near Bethany") period; John has these events (and more) happening over at least a week.

So which is correct? Setting aside the fact that the Eleven has to mean everyone but Judas, which is correct? Upon which story do you base your faith on? You can't base it on both, since they contradict each other. So which one do you believe?

[davidH]

Kosh,

lol, thanks for siding with Clutch - especially since he has not replied when i challenged him to show me very clearly where I had done my mental gymnastics. Yeah, so you agree with him?
Ok, I challenge you Kosh to go through that post and explain to me exactly where I did my mental gymnastics and where my logic goes out the window. (I suspect you will not answer)

As to my attempt to explain the Exodus - my first attempt was wrong because I was using 'out-dated' Egyptian timelines. But at least I can admit that, which is more than some here can do, for whatever their reasons. By the way even using the uptodate timelines the Exodus actually explains a lot of what happened in their history, even though the Egyptians never recorded it.

Yeah, accuse me of doing mental Gymnastics (but lets just forget to point out exactly where I did them....:rolleyes: )

At least Koyaanisqatsi has replied in sincerity - thanks.
You may not be aware but, this discussion with Roland originates on page 3 - where we discussed the 2 passages. At the moment we are focusing on the events I wrote about, though I will answer your other points about the later events.

The account of John records the evening when Jesus appeared to the disciples - but clearly states that Thomas was not present.

The account of Luke adds the story of the 2 disciples returning to Jerusalem - on the same evening, they hurried back to tell the others that they had seen Jesus. However they arrived the same evening - you see this is the source of the contradiction that Roland brought up - it was the same evening therefore Luke's account is about the same event. 7miles - I could run that in under an hour - walking it would probably take about 2.30 - 3hrs at a guess. If they left at 6 in the evening - 7 when it was getting dark - they would have arrived at 9 or 10. Hence it is talking about the same event - both Luke and John.

John then recalls the event a week later, when the Eleven were together and Jesus appeared to all of them (Thomas was present at this stage).

Your point now is that Luke didn't record this event, but records it as if this was their last meeting with Jesus, since he led them up the hill afterwards and was taken up into heaven. I will deal with this later because it is something different from what I am discussing with Roland.

Let me take you to the account now in Mark

(the 2 disciples event) v24 After that he appeared in another form unto 2 of them, as they walked, and went into the country. 13 And they went and told it onto the residue; neither believed they them. v14 Afterward he appeared unto the Eleven as they sat at a meal, and unbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

Mark doesn't record the time when Jesus appeared to the disciples in the room, but choses to record the time which John mentions happened a week later - when Thomas was present.

Before someone starts arguing that the word afterwards is refering to when Jesus appeared to the group that first time when Thomas wasn't present. And that the word 'afterwards' refers to straight away - it doesn't.

The actual word used here is Mr 16:14 ¶ Afterward <husteron>
This word means: more lately, i.e. eventually:--afterward, (at the) last (of all) It has a sense of time and so can't mean the same event. So did Luke make that event up? Answer = No - because John confirms it in his account.

The point I debated with Roland was he said Luke's account contradicted John's. I am sure that as you read it you will see that Luke records the Eleven ie Thomas as being there whenever the Disciples arrive back the same evening. Then while they are discussing their story Jesus appears. Luke doesn't record Thomas as having left, but neither does he state that the Eleven were still present when Jesus arrived.
But we assume that Thomas is still present unless we read otherwise - correct?
Then when Roland reads John's account that states Thomas was absent, rather than assuming ' Thomas must have left between when the disciples arrived and Jesus came' He takes his assumption that Thomas must still be there as fact (though that is never said) and says that there's a contradiction?!

Maybe you will side with those that are saying i am doing mental gymnastics here - but as you see I am not, nowhere at all.
Koyaanisqatsi - surely you see this?
If you say I am, then tell me where and point out why.

Clutch accused - he gave no reply when I challenged
Kosh accused - he (after all I had said to clutch) refused to back up his words by pointing out where.

Koyaanisqatsi, your last question to me:

Luke has all of these events happening within a two or three day time (assuming a day to travel to "near Bethany") period; John has these events (and more) happening over at least a week.

You can't base it on both since they contradict each other. So which one do you believe.

Luke's writing of the days after Jesus rose is compacted - you could as you have done, read it on its own and take it to show that Luke said the ascension happened on the same day as the resurection/or a day after it - but that would not be what Luke implied. The reason I say this is because it is evident in Luke's other book - right at the start where he mentions this.

Acts 1 v 3
To whom he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infalliable proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God

Originally Luke and Acts were suppose to be read as one book - carrying on from each other. They were writen to the same person.

Hope that helps.

[Roland]

DavidH -

The problem with saying that Mark records the SECOND appearance (the one when John claims Thomas is present) is that it states that Jesus rebukes the eleven for their refusal to believe what others have told them. Does this make sense in the context of the second visitation, since this charge would only apply to Thomas not all eleven, the others having already seen and spoken to Jesus a week earlier?

And I would still like someone to tell me when on this timeline of post-resurrection appearances Matthew's account occurs.

[Roland]

"not be what Luke implied"

David -

That's too funny. I still maintain that, as written, Luke "implies" that all eleven were present at Jesus' first appearance, since there is nothing in the text to "imply" otherwise and, in fact, the logical reading of it is that Thomas certainly WAS present. An author sets his scene and Luke certainly set it up so that we would see all eleven apostles present (just as Matthew expects us to understand that the angel spoke to Mary Magdalene).

If we took into consideration all the things that were apparently left unsaid in these accounts, we would probably end up with an entirely different story from the one we have now. So much for Bible "literalism."

[BadBadBad]

Originally posted by Magus55
Well, first here is an explanation for the different geneologies.

http://www.carm.org/diff/2geneologies.htm

You may not like the explanation, but its one nonetheless.




This is a pretty good demonstration of the mind set. Magus, just because it is "an" explanation doesn't make it true. Perhaps that's how we differ in our reasoning. For me, it's not an explanation unless it's true, or at least it's more reasonable than other more obvious and more plausible explanations.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by davidH
Go back to my last post on the subject and go through it and point out to me were I 'exchange reason for madness'.

Seriously point it out to me.

Seriously?! What part of arguing the veracity and consistency of a story that includes a talking snake and knowledge from a plant strikes you as "reason"?

[Tabula_rasa]

davidH,

I do understand that your interpretation of the term 'for in the day' means when. In this particular usage however, it is in the conjugate form and not the adverb form. Here are the definitions and usages for the conjugate meaning of the word when from Webster's Ninth Collegiate.

1a) at or during the time that : WHILE <went fishing when he was a boy>

1b) just at the moment that <stop writing when the bell rings>

1c) at or every time that <when he listens to music, he falls asleep>

2) in the event that : IF <a contestant is disqualified when he disobeys the rules>

3a) considering that <why use water at all when you can drown in it>

3b) inspite of the fact that : ALTHOUGH <quit politics when he might have had a good career in it>

If I understand the way you are interpreting the usage, you seem to be using the second sense of the word as in: in the event that. Correct?

Let's get back to Gen.2/17 for a moment and do a little rewriting.

Original: "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"

Replacing with when: "for [when] thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"

Replacing with the definition: "for [in the event that] thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"

Finally, replacing with the contracted definition: "for [if] thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"

That's enough pedantic gymnastics for one day.

Before I continue, I'd like to make sure of something. This is your interpretation, correct? A simple yes or no will suffice. If the answer is "No," I'd appreciate if you would point to the correct definition of "when" from the list above.

Regards,
Tabula_rasa

[unregistered_user_1]

Originally posted by Magus55
It would take hell freezing over fo