14
   

Does the Bible contain any true information?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Dec, 2010 07:33 pm
@Francis,
One contradiction out of how many in the bible? How does christians keep all this stuff straight? To do or not to do; that is the question.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2010 02:39 am
@Eorl,
Eorl wrote:
Ain't it boring when the Christians won't come to the collosseum? All us lions just sitting around ....


I hadn't seen this before, that's very witty, Boss.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2010 08:46 am
I could say we don't want to cast our pearls before swine and pretend while I am typing it I actually believe it, but the truth is at least from my own honest perspective, we're cowards.

All we got is the Bible to defend the Bible. If people don't believe in the first words; "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." debate from there is a struggle uphill with the other side ready and willing to tear down all they can. Attempts to reconcile perceived contradictions are put down as rationalizations...Went through this one time for quite some time.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2010 09:49 am
@revelette,
There are a lot of contradictions both within the text of scripture, and between the text of scripture and the expressed beliefs of theists, which are not perceived, but real. Actual contradictions which cannot be reconciled. I've only ever had the experience of believers attempting to say that scripture does not actually mean what it patently says. If you have a concrete example of what you refer to as a perceived contradiction which is not in fact an actual contradiction, i'd be interested to know what it is.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2010 10:47 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
If you have a concrete example of what you refer to as a perceived contradiction which is not in fact an actual contradiction, i'd be interested to know what it is.


Quote:
God is to be found by those who seek him
Matt 7:8/ Prov 8:17

- God is not to be found by those who seek him
Prov 1:28


In Proverbs 1:28 we are dealing with someone who has fallen in with sinners and then after they have fallen into their terror they seek God, He will not hear them then. The terror is referring to Hell. Proverbs 8 and Matthew 7:8 are talking about people who seek God in wisdom and truth (before the day of judgement.) I think. I may have to study it some more.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2010 12:36 pm
@revelette,
But that is not actually a contradiction, at least in the terms you have outlined. The people referred to in the first passage are not seeking god in wisdom and truth, but out of fear. Apples to oranges, Boss . . .
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Jan, 2011 09:36 am
@Setanta,
But that is just it, many of the so called contradictions are either taken out of the context the verses in question are found in or words and/or numbers or customs have different meanings than they do today, or the answer is explained in a previous account, sometimes the answer is explained by the history at the time which is in other history at that time.

In my opinion, either a person believes and has an open mind(heart and soul as well) and will search out an answer with faith that even if she/he can't find the answer right away, there is an answer, or they do not.

In any event, since I am not sure which contradiction will qualify, why not give me one to chew on or we can just forget it if you like.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Jan, 2011 11:23 am
@revelette,
That's called rationalizing the unrational.

According to the bible, the earth is 7,000 y/o. According to science, the earth is 4.5 billions y/o.

How is that taken out of context?

The facts are that those men who wrote the bible had no idea about the earth's age, and they jumped right in and created verse to match their ignorance.

There are many verses like those that you would need to "rationalize" in order to take them at face value - in your eyes.

You need to manipulate the stories so often to meet what you want it to say, it becomes inconsistent and irrational.

Most religious people can't accept the idea that prayers do not work; research on prayer have been done to prove they don't work.

Those kinds of inconsistencies are ignored by the faithful.

Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Jan, 2011 03:03 pm
@revelette,
Maybe you could give the song and dance you've cobbled together to rationalize the two geneologies of Jesus which contradict one another. Don't try that **** that one is for Joseph and the other for Mary. That's horseshit because it is not so stipulated in the scripture, and if the whole dog and pony show is as claimed, Joseph wasn't the boy's father anyway.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Jan, 2011 05:27 pm
@Setanta,
What would be the point, Setanta, if before I even attempt it, you call it a dog and pony show? Regardless of the fact that Luke did not stipulate that Mary's name is recorded as her husband's, Luke account is of Mary's and Matthew is of Josephs.

Luckily, I don't have cudgel my brains to cobble it together:

Quote:
Question: Why does Luke present a different ancestral tree for Jesus than the one in Matthew? For instance, why does Luke 3:23 say Jesus' grandfather was Heli, and Matthew 1:16 says it was Jacob? And why are there so many other differences?


Answer: It is hard to match for fullness and clarity the answer given by R. A. Torrey:

1. The genealogy given in Matthew is the genealogy of Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus, his father in the eyes of the law. The genealogy given in Luke is the genealogy of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and is the human genealogy of Jesus Christ in actual fact. The gospel of Matthew was written for Jews. All through it Joseph is prominent, Mary is scarcely mentioned. In Luke, on the other hand, Mary is the chief personage in the whole account of the Saviour’s conception and birth. Joseph is brought in only incidentally and because he was Mary’s husband. In all of this there is a deep significance.

2. In Matthew Jesus appears as the Messiah. In Luke He appears as “the Son of man,” our Brother and Redeemer, who belongs to the whole race and claims kindred with all kinds and conditions of men. So in Matthew the genealogy descends from Abraham to Joseph and Jesus, because all the predictions and promises touching the Messiah are fulfilled in Him. But in Luke the genealogy ascends from Jesus to Adam, because the genealogy is being traced back to the head of the whole race and shows the relation of the second Adam to the first.

3. Joseph’s line in Matthew is the strictly royal line from David to Joseph. In Luke, though the line of descent is from David, it is not the royal line. In this Jesus is descended from David through Nathan, David’s son indeed, but not in the royal line, and the list follows a line quite distinct from the royal line.

4. The Messiah, according to prediction, was to be the actual son of David according to the flesh (2 Samuel 7:12-19; Psalm 89:3-4, 34-37; 132:11; Acts 2:30; 13:22–23; Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8). These prophecies are fulfilled by Jesus being the son of Mary, who was a lineal descendant of David, though not in the royal line. Joseph, who was of the royal line, was not His father according to the flesh, but was His father in the eyes of the law.

5. Mary was a descendant of David through her father, Heli. It is true that Luke 3:23 says that Joseph was the son of Heli. The simple explanation of this is that according to Jewish usage (as seen in Ezra 2:61; Nehemiah 7:63) Mary’s name, being a woman, could not appear in the genealogy [as an actual link, that is—T.T.], males alone forming the line. So Joseph’s name is introduced in place of Mary’s, he being Mary’s husband. Heli was his father-in-law, and so Joseph is called the son of Heli, and the line is thus completed. While Joseph was son-in-law of Heli, according to the flesh he was in actual fact the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16).

6. Two genealogies are absolutely necessary to trace the lineage of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the royal and legal, and the natural and literal. We find the legal and royal genealogy in Matthew’s gospel, the gospel of law and kingship; the natural and literal in Luke’s, the gospel of humanity.

7. We are told in Jeremiah 22:30 that any descendant of Jeconiah could not come to the throne of David. Joseph was of this line, and while Joseph’s genealogy furnishes the royal line for Jesus, his son under the law, nevertheless Jeremiah’s prediction is fulfilled to the very letter, for Jesus (strictly speaking) was not Joseph’s descendant and therefore was not of the seed of Jeconiah. If Jesus had been the son of Joseph in reality, He could not have come to the throne, but He is Mary’s son through Nathan and can come to the throne legally by her marrying Joseph and so clearing His way legally to it.




Norm Geisler and Thomas Howe note some further details:

...that Luke would record Mary's genealogy fits with his interest as a doctor in mothers and birth and with his emphasis on women in his Gospel which has been called “the Gospel for Women.”


Finally, the fact that the two genealogies have some names in common (such as Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, Matt. 1:12; cf. Luke 3:27) does not prove they are the same genealogy for two reasons. One, these are not uncommon names. Further, even the same genealogy (Luke's) has a repeat of the names Joseph and Judah (3:26,30).


The two genealogies can be summarized as follows:

MATTHEW LUKE

David David
| |
Solomon Nathan
| |
Rehoboam Mattathah
| |
Abijah Menan
| |
Asa Melea
| |
Jehoshaphat Eliakim
| |
. . . . . . . . . .
| |
Jacob Heli———
| |
Joseph—Mary—legal wife Joseph—Mary—actual mother
(legal father) (legal husband)?
| |
| |
Jesus Jesus


source

(I cut out some unnecessary parts)
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Jan, 2011 05:42 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
According to the bible, the earth is 7,000 y/o. According to science, the earth is 4.5 billions y/o.


What C & V does the bible say the earth is 7,000 years old? I have never read it. But then there is still a lot I haven't read, but I would think I would remember something like that.


BTW Ci, guess we made it to new years. How was yours? Mine was quiet for once. I feel guilty because I refused to babysit...
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Jan, 2011 06:16 pm
@revelette,
From Wiki:
Quote:
Young Earth creationism (YEC) is a form of creationism that asserts the Heavens, Earth, and all life was created by direct acts of the Abrahamic God during a relatively short period, sometime between c. 5,700[1] and 10,000 years ago.[2] Its adherents are those Christians and Jews[3] who believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days, taking a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative as a basis for their beliefs,[4][5] and include around 10-45% of American adults, depending on various polls.[6] Some adherents hold that this view is supported by existing evidence in the natural world. Those adherents believe that the scientific evidence supporting evolution, geological uniformitarianism, or other theories which are contradictory to a literal interpretation of this creation myth, is misinterpreted.[7]


Also, this:
Quote:
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
The earth is approximately 4 1/2 billion years old.

And Carbon Dating is used past 60,000 years (despite a previous posters comments), it's just not quite as accurate to the day/year then (meaning there is a margin of error, not meaning it doesnt work).

There is no scientific conspiracy. The earth is not 6 or 60 thousand years old. That is straight up propoganda with no basis in any kind of reality.

I believe faith doesnt have to make you stupid. It's should not be used as an excuse to ignore facts.

Science and spirituality need not be mutually exclusive. It's just as impressive if God or whomever made the earth 4.5 billion years ago and that evolution was part of the grand scheme.

But unfortunately it's easier to just to blindly believe, rather than use the brain god gave you.

As far as what the bible says? According to creationists they deem it 6,000 years old from certain texts. It's interesting what you say regarding time in the eyes of god.
Maybe a thousand years is a day in gods eyes?

Who knows.... but know this. The bible is a book. An important book, but a book none the less.... written not by jesus, compiled not by his followers. But by ecclecastial conference some hundreds of years after the death of christ. Then re-translated, and re-edited a gazillion times since. It's a great & important story, but a story none the less.



As the man says, it's only a book written - not by jesus, but by his followers some hundreds of years after the (supposed) death of christ.
If it was hundreds of years after his death, how did they know he even existed? Good trick. Mythology is a good bet, because many gods created during that period were mythological gods. Trying to justify all the errors, omissions, and contradictions in the bible only shows it's not factual. How many rationalizations of those mistakes must one make in order to believe it's true? How many interpretations does it require to arrive at the correct answer? That one must rely on it to "save ones soul" is a fool-hearty proposition.

revelette
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Jan, 2011 06:51 pm
@cicerone imposter,
CI, you know you didn't answer my question of what C & V the bible states the earth is 7,000 years old. People can infer or claim or believe all kind of things, but in the end, where does it say in the bible how old the earth is?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Jan, 2011 06:57 pm
@revelette,
The best bible scholars came to this conclusion. You'll have to ask them for any answer for their claim. I'm not a bible scholar, but have heard this number (5.5 thousand to 10,000 years) enough time to remember 7,000 as the average. That's a far cry from the 4.5 billions y/o we now know about through science.

Interestingly enough, I did a Google search, but there doesn't seem to exist too many links about the 7,000 earth based on the bible.

Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Jan, 2011 07:51 pm
@revelette,
This is exactly why i call it a dog and pony show before you've responded. The text does not stipulate that these are two different geneologies, one materal and one paternal, so you have a wonderful example of the religiously convinced doing a dance to get around the fact that they are claiming scripture means what it patently does not say.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Jan, 2011 07:57 pm
@cicerone imposter,
The 6000 year figure was arrived at by Bishop Ussher in Ireland in the 17th century. You can read about him in the Wikipedia article. According to Ussher's exegesis, the earth was created sometime on Saturday night, October 22, 4004 BC. Subsequent adjustments have only quibbled over the exact date, but not varrying by more that about 55 years.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Jan, 2011 09:09 pm
@revelette,
revelette, The following is from the Wiki article. His credentials are much better than either of us when it's about the bible and time of creation, and I trust his to be as accurate as possible, considering the different sources he used for his calculation.

Quote:
Chronology
Main article: Ussher chronology

Ussher now concentrated on his research and writing and returned to the study of chronology and the church fathers. After a 1647 work on the origin of the Creeds, Ussher published a treatise on the calendar in 1648. This was a warm-up for his most famous work, the Annales veteris testamenti, a prima mundi origine deducti ("Annals of the Old Testament, deduced from the first origins of the world"), which appeared in 1650, and its continuation, Annalium pars postierior, published in 1654. In this work, he calculated the date of the Creation to have been nightfall preceding 23 October 4004 BC. (Other scholars, such as Cambridge academic, John Lightfoot, calculated their own dates for the Creation.) The time of the Ussher chronology is frequently misquoted as being 9 a.m., noon or 9 p.m. on 23 October. See the related article on the chronology for a discussion of its claims and methodology.

Ussher's work is sometimes associated with Young Earth Creationism, which holds that the universe was created several millennia ago. But while calculating the date of the Creation is today in some circles considered a controversial activity, in Ussher's time such a calculation was still regarded as an important task, one previously attempted by many Post-Reformation scholars, such as Joseph Justus Scaliger and physicist Isaac Newton.

Ussher's chronology represented a considerable feat of scholarship: it demanded great depth of learning in what was then known of ancient history, including the rise of the Persians, Greeks and Romans, as well as expertise in the bible, biblical languages, astronomy, ancient calendars and chronology, Ussher's account of historical events for which he had multiple sources other than the Bible is usually in close agreement with modern accounts – for example, he placed the death of Alexander in 323 BC and that of Julius Caesar in 44 BC.

But Ussher's last extra-biblical coordinate was the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar, and beyond this point he had to rely on other considerations. Faced with inconsistent texts of the Torah, each with a different number of years between Flood and Creation, Ussher chose the Masoretic version. Partly his reasons were sound scholarly ones – the Masoretic text claims an unbroken history of careful transcription stretching back centuries – but his choice was confirmed for him because it placed Creation exactly four thousand years before 4 BC, the generally accepted date for the birth of Christ; moreover, he calculated, Solomon’s temple was completed in the year 3000 from creation, so that there were exactly 1000 years from the temple to Christ, who was the fulfilment of the Temple.[7]


Can you provide any credible source that refutes this information?
Smileyrius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2011 06:33 am
@cicerone imposter,
a mans thoughts are no more validated merely because he publishes them.
But then again, if it is on the interwebs...

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2011 11:45 am
@Smileyrius,
It's validated when other bible scholars support his research; that's called science in human terms.

The problem with believers is the simple fact that they refute science, because it explains facts that refutes the bible.
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2011 12:23 pm
@jesusBastard,
jesusBastard wrote:

Consider the lack of education of its writers.



What was the "education" of the "writers"?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/10/2024 at 09:16:57