Contradictions in the Bible...

Ok... this one threw me for quite a loop. I have been studying, researching, and contemplating this for over a week now and I honestly don't think I have ever strained my brain quite as hard as I have on this stinking question! Sheesh! But I finally got it! Wooooooo hooooooooo! I was just about to give up and write this one off as a contradiction, but it looks like all my hard work and studying paid off... well hopefully... This is going to sound a bit far fetched at first but read it through and I think you'll understand where I'm going here... so here goes nothing... *sigh*

When did Absalom rebel against David?

Quote:

2 Samuel 15:7
And it came to pass after forty years, that Absalom said unto the king, I pray thee, let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed unto the LORD, in Hebron.

Quote:

2 Samuel 5:4
David was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years.

The answer to the question is that Absalom's rebellion was in full force after forty years. Which doesn't seem possible since David only reigned for forty years right? But it is possible and here's how:

As I have said before the Hebrew language translates much different than ours. The word "reigned" actually had several different meanings and was used in several different contexts. Take a look at this:

The following are kings that "reigned" over Israel:

Og Reigned (Joshua 15:5) Solomon Reigned (1 Kings 4:21)
4910 mashal maw-shal' a primitive root; to rule:--(have, make to have) dominion, governor, X indeed, reign, (bear, cause to, have) rule(-ing, -r), have power.

Abimelech Reigned (Jud 9:22)
7786 suwr soor a primitive root; properly, to vanquish; by implication, to rule (causatively, crown):--make princes, have power, reign. See 5493.

David Reigned
4427 malak maw-lak' a primitive root; to reign; inceptively, to ascend the throne; causatively, to induct into royalty; hence (by implication) to take counsel:--consult, X indeed, be (make, set a, set up) king, be (make) queen, (begin to, make to) reign(-ing), rule, X surely.

Now, if you'll notice there is a very distinct difference between the "reigned" used for Og, Solomon, and Abimelech, and the one used for David. With the first three kings it is defined very clearly as ruling, governing, having power, and so forth. However, when you get to the definition of the word used in King Davids case the definition spreads out a bit. Goes from just having power or ruling to taking counsel, being inducted into royalty. It takes it to a more personal level.

King David was not like the other kings. If you read the whole story (as I have about 50 times in the last week Rolling Eyes

) you can see that he dealt with the people of Israel on a much more personal level. He didn't just sit on a throne, wave around his scepter and make demands of those "below" him. He was out there to be seen and talked to. He allowed many people into his presence to speak to him that most kings probably wouldn't have. He was very much involved in every aspect of ruling this kingdom at times. This kind of rulership fits right into the definition that is posed for when he reigned and actually explains how it is that if he only reigned for forty years Absalom could have rebelled after forty years.

The thing is with this kind of rulership if the people aren't following you or your leadership, technically you are not reigning over them. Twice in the time that David was king the people of Israel were led astray from him by someone rebelling and he was actually forced to leave his throne in the rebellion with Absalom:

Quote:

2 Samuel 16
15 Meanwhile Absalom and all the people, the men of Israel, came to Jerusalem; and Ahithophel was with him. 16 And so it was, when Hushai the Archite, David's friend, came to Absalom, that Hushai said to Absalom, "Long live the king! Long live the king!" 17 So Absalom said to Hushai, "Is this your loyalty to your friend? Why did you not go with your friend?" 18 And Hushai said to Absalom, "No, but whom the LORD and this people and all the men of Israel choose, his I will be, and with him I will remain. 19 Furthermore, whom should I serve? Should I not serve in the presence of his son? As I have served in your father's presence, so will I be in your presence."

Quote:

2 Samuel 19
9 Now all the people were in a dispute throughout all the tribes of Israel, saying, "The king saved us from the hand of our enemies, he delivered us from the hand of the Philistines, and now he has fled from the land because of Absalom. 10 But Absalom, whom we anointed over us, has died in battle. Now therefore, why do you say nothing about bringing back the king?"... 14 So he swayed the hearts of all the men of Judah, just as the heart of one man, so that they sent this word to the king: "Return, you and all your servants!" 15 Then the king returned and came to the Jordan. And Judah came to Gilgal, to go to meet the king, to escort the king across the Jordan.

Quote:

2 Samuel 20
1 And there happened to be there a rebel, whose name was Sheba the son of Bichri, a Benjamite. And he blew a trumpet, and said:

"We have no share in David,
Nor do we have inheritance in the son of Jesse;
Every man to his tents, O Israel!"

2 So every man of Israel deserted David, and followed Sheba the son of Bichri. But the men of Judah, from the Jordan as far as Jerusalem, remained loyal to their king.

Now, this rebellion didn't last nearly as long as the one with Absalom. When he did it, he did it right. He got everyone pretty much except Davids closest servants. He left David no other option but to run for his life. The question is... how long did it last? I have not a clue on that one. I could make a good guess though and say it was quite a while before David returned to his throne. From what I read it looks like he ruled for about five years before Absalom began his rebellion. Absalom was at it for fourty years, David was on the run for an unknown amount of years, then he returned and finished out his remaining 35 years (approximately) with one little blip from Sheba, turned over the kingdom to Solomon, and then died.

0 Replies

Re: God?
Hi I'll answer some of the contradictions but because I came late I'm answering the ones at the beginning for now. Sorry if I may be changing the subject at present...

Doktor S wrote:

Here you go, heph, start with this easy one.
Did jesus tell his disciples everything of God...

Quote:

John 15:15
For all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

Or not?

Quote:

John 16:12
I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

Jesus does tell his desciples everything of God, your missing a key word in the second scripture which is: now. My translation says that they are unable to bear them at present. John 16:12 goes along with Mark 4:33:

So with many illustrations of that sort he would speak the word to them, as far as they were able to listen.

And 1 Cor. 3:1: And so, brothers, I was not able to speak to YOU as to spiritual men, but as to fleshly men, as to babes in Christ.

All these scriptures prove that Jesus did share with them all that he heard from the father except some of them were unable to listen to the word and 1 Cor. 3:1 mentions that he had to speak to them like babies, and not like mature christians with discernment.

dalahow2 wrote:

Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?
JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Jesus is NOT equal to God. The scripture John 10:30 means they are one in purpose. It is talking about unity. It is proven by these scriptures:

John 17:11: Holy Father, watch over them on account of your own name which you have given me, in order that they[his disciples] may be one just as we are.

John 17:21: 21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Or as this modern language translation puts it:
John 17:21: in order that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, in order that the world may believe that you sent me forth.

So of course his disciples would not be part of the trinity if it meant Jesus is God! The same Greek word (hen) is used for "one" in all these instances and is clear that it speaks about unity.

0 Replies

Re: God?

dalahow2 wrote:

Please read this link for once.

Written by Jim Merritt

Well I think I could answer the list of contradictions you put up but they are so many it would take too much time. However, a found a website that does.

Jim Merrit's list of contradictions beaten to a pulp

0 Replies

Well knowjah. Personally speaking, I think it's worth the time to look it up myself. Then I know whether it's right or wrong based on my own research. I'm not one for believing something someone says just because they say it's right. I was led to believe many wrong things based on that kind of thinking. Of couse you are welcome to join the thread though. Any help you can offer is appreciated. By the way... welcome to A2K. Smile

0 Replies

Re: God?

KnowJah wrote:

dalahow2 wrote:
Please read this link for once.

Written by Jim Merritt

Well I think I could answer the list of contradictions you put up but they are so many it would take too much time. However, a found a website that does.

Jim Merrit's list of contradictions beaten to a pulp

Beaten to a pulp? Hardly ... merely assailed - inneffectualy beyond the amusement unwittingly provided therein - by sophistry, circular reasoning, red herrings, and straw man argument. What is demonstrated is that such proponents of the Christian proposition as hew to that POV hold themselves apart from logic, reason, evidence, history, and intellectual honesty.Far from making their case, they serve only to confirm and validate the criticisms they endeavor to address. And, of course, it goes without saying these gullible, disingenuous would-be apologists do not, cannot, recognize or acknowledge their folly; its all they've got.

0 Replies

Examples?

0 Replies

hephzibah wrote:

Well knowjah. Personally speaking, I think it's worth the time to look it up myself. Then I know whether it's right or wrong based on my own research. I'm not one for believing something someone says just because they say it's right. I was led to believe many wrong things based on that kind of thinking. Of couse you are welcome to join the thread though. Any help you can offer is appreciated. By the way... welcome to A2K.

Yeah I feel the same way to. I didn't really look up any of that stuff but the only reason why I put that was because the other guy put up a list of contradictions so I just out up a random list too. I'm not sure if the whole list of contradictions were the all ones he really wanted to know anyway. (And the list being beaten to a pulp arent my words anyway). Some questions I think are rediculous on that list while others I think are reasonable to ask.

Such as the one about Jesus being equal to God, on the link I gave they can barely answer it it seems, they are so desperate to keep tjheir cherished trinity concept. What is your opinion anyway about how I answered why Jesus is not equal?

Also can you please tell me which one on the link I gave gave poor reasoning to the "contradictions" as I have not looked it over.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Examples?

"This is so because the Bible says its so; any reading of the Bible not consistent with inerrant, divinely-inspired revelation is in error" - petitio principii is the whole of the purported counter-argument. While there well may be valid counter-argument to the contradiction/inconsistency challenges and criticisms levelled against the Bible - and, by extension the entire Abrahamic mythopaeia - no such valid counter-argument has been presented in these discussions. So far in these discussions, apologists for any of the propositions dependent upon the Abrahamic mythopaeia have for authority only their particular subset proposition's exclusively self-referential claim of authority. Resort to and reliance upon religious faith is not a forensic tool, it is but a theophilosophical construct of comfort and convenience - and at that, if and only if theology be granted stature equivalent to philosophy. While it may be argued all philosophy is suspect, religious philosophy - theology - proceedes from the shakiest of ground; "Faith" alone, and nothing more, is the font of theology.

Once more, I submit that religious faith cannot, objectively, in forensically sound, academically valid manner, be differentiated from superstition; by definition and in actual effect, the two are equivalent.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

While there well may be valid counter-argument to the contradiction/inconsistency challenges and criticisms levelled against the Bible - and, by extension the entire Abrahamic mythopaeia - no such valid counter-argument has been presented in these discussions.

So why do you keep reading and not saying anything then timber? Granted I do realize you are probably not talking about this thread only.

timberlandko wrote:

So far in these discussions, apologists for any of the propositions dependent upon the Abrahamic mythopaeia have for authority only their particular subset proposition's exclusively self-referential claim of authority.

This one really hasn't been a discussion. It's just been me researching and posting. No one has challenged what I have posted. Why? After all this is a debate forum right? I'm certainly not opposed to someone disagreeing with me or being able to show me the error of my ways. So... go ahead timber. If this thread is that bad why not point out what's wrong with the things I've been posting?

timberlandko wrote:

Resort to and reliance upon religious faith is not a forensic tool, it is but a theophilosophical construct of comfort and convenience - and at that, if and only if theology be granted stature equivalent to philosophy. While it may be argued all philosophy is suspect, religious philosophy - theology - proceedes from the shakiest of ground; "Faith" alone, and nothing more, is the font of theology.

I've never seen anyone claim it as a forensic tool. I don't think I have. However faith is not limited to religion only. Yet it is only "religious faith" that seems to suffer at the hands of those who don't "believe" simply because such a simple concept as actually "believing in something" is too preposterous for their "intellectual minds". Well that's how it could appear with some people at times anyway.

0 Replies

KnowJah wrote:

hephzibah wrote:
Well knowjah. Personally speaking, I think it's worth the time to look it up myself. Then I know whether it's right or wrong based on my own research. I'm not one for believing something someone says just because they say it's right. I was led to believe many wrong things based on that kind of thinking. Of couse you are welcome to join the thread though. Any help you can offer is appreciated. By the way... welcome to A2K.

Yeah I feel the same way to. I didn't really look up any of that stuff but the only reason why I put that was because the other guy put up a list of contradictions so I just out up a random list too. I'm not sure if the whole list of contradictions were the all ones he really wanted to know anyway. (And the list being beaten to a pulp arent my words anyway). Some questions I think are ridiculous on that list while others I think are reasonable to ask.

Some of the questions do seem a bit silly. But some have proven to be a bit more challenging. Smile

LOL so you fight fire with fire huh? (putting out a random list just because that person did) Hehehe... that's awesome. Laughing

I like you already. :wink:

KnowJah wrote:

Such as the one about Jesus being equal to God, on the link I gave they can barely answer it it seems, they are so desperate to keep tjheir cherished trinity concept. What is your opinion anyway about how I answered why Jesus is not equal?

Actually I've always taken that scripture as implying the trinity. That is after all what I was taught in church... Rolling Eyes

However I can see your point and will look in to that one a bit further. I never even thought of the possibility of that meaning unity and not literal "oneness". Ha! How interesting! I think you did a good job answering that and making your point clear. I can't remember now why I stopped answering questions and just went to the website and started going down the list. I think people may have stopped asking... hmmm... Maybe I accidentally skipped a few questions... I dunno.. anyway, here's the link to the website I've been using if you are interested in looking at it:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

I've made it down to question nine. *sigh* This is a bit more work than I originally thought it was going to be. It is quite interesting to me though. I guess I'm on a mission of sorts here. I think thats the best way to put it. To see my beliefs either stand or fall. I need to do this for myself. It would be nice if people read this stuff and got something out of it. Something productive that is. However I wonder sometimes if there are many who think along the lines of timber. That's ok if they do.

I'm sure it can sound quite ridiculous at times. *shrugs* There's not much I can do about other peoples opinions. They have that right and I certainly won't deny them the right to think believing in God is vain, childish, thinking for the weak-minded individual. I like them all just the same. There's some pretty good people here at this forum. I'd hate to disrespect them just because they don't agree with me. Razz

KnowJah wrote:

Also can you please tell me which one on the link I gave gave poor reasoning to the "contradictions" as I have not looked it over.

Sorry. I didn't look at the link you gave. Probably should have. Confused

So I can't answer that one for ya. Though something to keep in mind is "poor reasoning" is a widely used term here. It doesn't necessarily mean that the reasoning was actually "poor" as it was more probably along the lines of being "poor reasoning" to the individual who disagrees and won't argue the point of why.

0 Replies

material girl wrote:

I started to read the bible when I was about 12.I stopped when I read 2 daughters had sex with their dad to bare a son to keep the family line going.

As far as Im aware incest is wrong.

So theres yuor starter for 10.

According to the Bible we all decended from Adam and Eve. Therefore, we are all having sex with cousins etc. Not only is incest correct but that's all there is!

0 Replies

hephzibah wrote:

timberlandko wrote:
While there well may be valid counter-argument to the contradiction/inconsistency challenges and criticisms levelled against the Bible - and, by extension the entire Abrahamic mythopaeia - no such valid counter-argument has been presented in these discussions.

So why do you keep reading and not saying anything then timber? Granted I do realize you are probably not talking about this thread only.

The burden of proof falls to the presenter of the affirmative case. So far, that burden has not been taken up. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. No more extraordinary claim may be imagined than the existence of the supernatural. Despite incessent claim and assertion by the proposition's proponents, no proof thereof, extraordinary or otherwise, has been presented; all that has been offered in support of the proposition has been assumption, preference, opinion, and further unsubtianted claim.

Quote:

timberlandko wrote:
So far in these discussions, apologists for any of the propositions dependent upon the Abrahamic mythopaeia have for authority only their particular subset proposition's exclusively self-referential claim of authority.

This one really hasn't been a discussion. It's just been me researching and posting. No one has challenged what I have posted. Why? After all this is a debate forum right? I'm certainly not opposed to someone disagreeing with me or being able to show me the error of my ways. So... go ahead timber. If this thread is that bad why not point out what's wrong with the things I've been posting?

Again - the burden of proof falls to the presenter of the affirmative case. What is "wrong" - and not just with your posts, nor even paricularly with reference to your posts, is that no proof has been forthcoming.

Quote:

timberlandko wrote:
Resort to and reliance upon religious faith is not a forensic tool, it is but a theophilosophical construct of comfort and convenience - and at that, if and only if theology be granted stature equivalent to philosophy. While it may be argued all philosophy is suspect, religious philosophy - theology - proceedes from the shakiest of ground; "Faith" alone, and nothing more, is the font of theology.

I've never seen anyone claim it as a forensic tool. I don't think I have. However faith is not limited to religion only. Yet it is only "religious faith" that seems to suffer at the hands of those who don't "believe" simply because such a simple concept as actually "believing in something" is too preposterous for their "intellectual minds". Well that's how it could appear with some people at times anyway.

The manner by which in this and related discussions on these boards proponents of the religionist proposition put forward their case reveals unambiguously their intent to employ religious faith as, or perhaps more accuratel, in lieu of a forensic tool. Faith in particular reference to the religious sense of that word is irrational by definition, in that the belief set thereon dependent is devoid of empirical external reference or validation; such faith exists soley within its own self-defined, wholly self-referential universe. A claim or assumption does not, cannot, validate itself. The argument operational here is not that religion/religious faith be or even may be proven valid or invalid, but rather that no proof or validation for the proposition and its dependencies has been presented.

Any are welcome to hold and espouse such opinion as they find fit. It is not opinion but clear fact that those participating on the affirmative side in this and related discussions on these boards so far have failed to satisfy the requirement of proving the case for the proposition they forward. It is my opinion those participating on the affirmative side in this and related discussions on these boards are unable to satisfy that requirement.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

hephzibah wrote:
timberlandko wrote:
While there well may be valid counter-argument to the contradiction/inconsistency challenges and criticisms levelled against the Bible - and, by extension the entire Abrahamic mythopaeia - no such valid counter-argument has been presented in these discussions.

So why do you keep reading and not saying anything then timber? Granted I do realize you are probably not talking about this thread only.

The burden of proof falls to the presenter of the affirmative case. So far, that burden has not been taken up. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. No more extraordinary claim may be imagined than the existence of the supernatural. Despite incessent claim and assertion by the proposition's proponents, no proof thereof, extraordinary or otherwise, has been presented; all that has been offered in support of the proposition has been assumption, preference, opinion, and further unsubtianted claim.

Quote:
timberlandko wrote:
So far in these discussions, apologists for any of the propositions dependent upon the Abrahamic mythopaeia have for authority only their particular subset proposition's exclusively self-referential claim of authority.

This one really hasn't been a discussion. It's just been me researching and posting. No one has challenged what I have posted. Why? After all this is a debate forum right? I'm certainly not opposed to someone disagreeing with me or being able to show me the error of my ways. So... go ahead timber. If this thread is that bad why not point out what's wrong with the things I've been posting?

Again - the burden of proof falls to the presenter of the affirmative case. What is "wrong" - and not just with your posts, nor even paricularly with reference to your posts, is that no proof has been forthcoming.

Quote:
timberlandko wrote:
Resort to and reliance upon religious faith is not a forensic tool, it is but a theophilosophical construct of comfort and convenience - and at that, if and only if theology be granted stature equivalent to philosophy. While it may be argued all philosophy is suspect, religious philosophy - theology - proceedes from the shakiest of ground; "Faith" alone, and nothing more, is the font of theology.

I've never seen anyone claim it as a forensic tool. I don't think I have. However faith is not limited to religion only. Yet it is only "religious faith" that seems to suffer at the hands of those who don't "believe" simply because such a simple concept as actually "believing in something" is too preposterous for their "intellectual minds". Well that's how it could appear with some people at times anyway.

The manner by which in this and related discussions on these boards proponents of the religionist proposition put forward their case reveals unambiguously their intent to employ religious faith as, or perhaps more accuratel, in lieu of a forensic tool. Faith in particular reference to the religious sense of that word is irrational by definition, in that the belief set thereon dependent is devoid of empirical external reference or validation; such faith exists soley within its own self-defined, wholly self-referential universe. A claim or assumption does not, cannot, validate itself. The argument operational here is not that religion/religious faith be or even may be proven valid or invalid, but rather that no proof or validation for the proposition and its dependencies has been presented.

Any are welcome to hold and espouse such opinion as they find fit. It is not opinion but clear fact that those participating on the affirmative side in this and related discussions on these boards so far have failed to satisfy the requirement of proving the case for the proposition they forward. It is my opinion those participating on the affirmative side in this and related discussions on these boards are unable to satisfy that requirement.

Timber, I honestly am wondering at this point if you even have the slightest clue what my "proposition" really is. I thought I made that pretty clear, so maybe I was mistaken in saying you have been reading this.... It's not to prove the bible as truth... in case that is what you are thinking. I could never prove it as truth to anyone because it is up to the reader to decide what they believe. Or if they even would take the time to read the bible itself rather than just look up websites and throw around a few contradictions. Rather my proposition is to see if these contradictions legitimate. If thus far I have failed in proving any of these as illegitimate contradictions you would have a case. So, tell me Timber have I?

0 Replies

Heph, saying "The bible says this-and-so, which some say is at odds with what the bible says here-and-such, however one must interpret the bible in some-particular-light in order to see and understand there is no conflict" is not argument, refutation, or rebuttal; it is sophistry. Whether the myriad contradictions, inconsistencies, and outright factual errors in the bible be the result of mistranslation, mistranscription, or misunderstanding, whether they existed in the assorted originals at the times of their respective authorships or have been introduced subsequently, by whatever mechanism, to whatever, if any, purpose, is at once moot and immaterial; they are there.

0 Replies

Right. I agree. The thing is Timber even though it may have absolutely no impact on your life what so ever because you don't believe it, I have spent the last 17 years believing what is written in this book as truth, therefore it has a much greater impact on my life. An impact that I think is important and could change the very foundation of my life. So... I will continue on because I would like to know for myself if they are legitimate or not. You are under no obligation what so ever to continue reading though. I do believe there are a few others out there who find this moderately interesting which is why I continue posting the results. However, if it is of no interest to anyone besides myself I would gladly continue this on my own. I'd prefer not to though because I do enjoy getting input that is actually insightful from others who are willing to contribute.

0 Replies

If I didn't find the discussion interesting, I'd neither follow along nor participate. Disagreement does not equate to disinterest, and dispute does not equal dismissal. I have no reason, no wish, to doubt, nor even to question, your sincerity and the depth and commitment of your belief, and be assured I respect you, and all of that. What I challenge is the mythopaeia from which your belief set derives; considered objectively, dispassionately, analytically, it is neither more nor less than a fascinating, multi-faceted, deeply ingrained cultural artifact, an attribute of the human condition with origins far predating history.

And once again, in all respect, "One must have have faith in order to believe" is no answer, it is a tautology, an intellectually bankrupt assertion the conclusion of which is indistinguishable from its premise, a rhetorical trick, circular, empty, meaningless, and alltogether useless, adding neither clarification nor even additional information to matter at discussion.

While you're trying to understand - a laudable effort, and one to be encouraged without reservation - try to understand I neither disbelieve nor believe, in the religious sense; I see nothing there to believe or disbelieve, I've encountered no reason to choose one or the other.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

If I didn't find the discussion interesting, I'd neither follow along nor participate. Disagreement does not equate to disinterest, and dispute does not equal dismissal. I have no reason, no wish, to doubt, nor even to question, your sincerity and the depth and commitment of your belief, and be assured I respect you, and all of that. What I challenge is the mythopaeia from which your belief set derives; considered objectively, dispassionately, analytically, it is neither more nor less than a fascinating, multi-faceted, deeply ingrained cultural artifact, an attribute of the human condition with origins far predating history.

Ok fair enough. But you are not disputing the contradictions or the answers I've provided, which is the purpose of this thread. To you it may be considered "mythopaeia" but to me it is a way of life. A source of hope in a world filled with tragedy and injustice. It taught me about learning and growing into a better person. Into someone who does more than just whacking people over the head (not saying you do) and condemning them because they disagree with me. Than sitting in some high seat looking down on everyone because I'm ooooh so smart or oooh so spiritual. It's taught me about loving others. Respecting others. Helping others. No matter who they are, where they came from, or what they believe. So even if it is a myth, I don't ever think I will consider it bad. Purely because of the impact it has had on my life and how believing it has changed me which helped me to change my world. Now... "religion" itself... That's a whole different story that deserves it's very own thread. Maybe I'll start one some day...

timberlandko wrote:

And once again, in all respect, "One must have have faith in order to believe" is no answer, it is a tautology, an intellectually bankrupt assertion the conclusion of which is indistinguishable from its premise, a rhetorical trick, circular, empty, meaningless, and alltogether useless, adding neither clarification nor even additional information to matter at discussion.

Honestly Timber, I don't think I've ever said that. Gosh I hope not anyway. I agree completely with what you've said here. The word "faith" has no meaning to someone who doesn't even believe in faith. It's like telling someone who you treat rude, disrespectfully, even hatefully that you "love them with the love of the Lord" (Ack.. that makes me gag) The word love is empty and void without any action as is the word faith. If you don't believe in it, you won't act on it, and therefore in your world (or who ever's world) faith is not. It's just that simple. And to tell someone "One must have have faith in order to believe" is nothing more than a cop out which to me comes off as very condescending. As if I were implying you are some how lesser of a person than I because you "don't have faith". I will discuss faith with someone who would like to. But I hope I don't and haven't presented it as something that you must obtain in order to gain my respect or be seen as "worth of my time" to discuss something.

timberlandko wrote:

While you're trying to understand - a laudable effort, and one to be encouraged without reservation - try to understand I neither disbelieve nor believe, in the religious sense; I see nothing there to believe or disbelieve, I've encountered no reason to choose one or the other.

Well Timber... I apologize for making an assumption as to your intent here and what you were saying. I do appreciate that you clarified intentions.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

neologist wrote:
Examples?

"This is so because the Bible says its so; any reading of the Bible not consistent with inerrant, divinely-inspired revelation is in error" - petitio principii is the whole of the purported counter-argument. While there well may be valid counter-argument to the contradiction/inconsistency challenges and criticisms levelled against the Bible - and, by extension the entire Abrahamic mythopaeia - no such valid counter-argument has been presented in these discussions. So far in these discussions, apologists for any of the propositions dependent upon the Abrahamic mythopaeia have for authority only their particular subset proposition's exclusively self-referential claim of authority. Resort to and reliance upon religious faith is not a forensic tool, it is but a theophilosophical construct of comfort and convenience - and at that, if and only if theology be granted stature equivalent to philosophy. While it may be argued all philosophy is suspect, religious philosophy - theology - proceedes from the shakiest of ground; "Faith" alone, and nothing more, is the font of theology.

Once more, I submit that religious faith cannot, objectively, in forensically sound, academically valid manner, be differentiated from superstition; by definition and in actual effect, the two are equivalent.

OK, but you never answered this question from the other thread. It was so small I'm sure you just missed it:

neologist wrote:

Which Isaiah correctly predicted the complete abandonment and desolation of Babylon?

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. No more extraordinary claim may be imagined than the existence of the supernatural. Despite incessent claim and assertion by the proposition's proponents, no proof thereof, extraordinary or otherwise, has been presented....

Your post indicates that you realize asking for natural proof of the supernatural would be absurd.

What have you done to investigate the existence or non-existence of the supernatural (which proof you seem to indicate you would accept if it were possible to obtain, or if it was offered) ?

(Let's keep in mind that any 'investigation' which purports to determine the existence of the supernatural, but is limited to naturalistic methods and assumptions, would be a sham.)

0 Replies

Sorry, Neo, I did miss that. It mostlikely would have been Duetero Isaiah, writing in the latter half of the the 6th Century BCE, the period encompassing the fall of Babylon to Cyrus and the consequent return of the Jews from The Captivity, with some considerable indication of even later editing. It should be noted that while Cyrus indeed displaced the Babylonian regime resonsible for The Captivity, and returned the Jews to their homeland, Cyrus did not "tke" Babylon, the city was surrendered to Cyrus without a fight, Cyrus did not topple Babylon's gods, but rather embraced them, and that Babylon never was destroyed, it merely withered following the post-Alexandrine transfer of power and influence to Seleucia. Well into the 1st Century CE, the city, though greatly diminished in comparison to former glory and perhaps barely qualifying to be termed a city rather than a town or even village, was a regional center of commerce and minor administration, with habitation - diminishing to be sure, but habitation none the less - continuing into the 7th Century CE.

According to the majority consensus only, you understand :wink:

0 Replies

Contradictions in the Bible...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know