Apparent Biblical Discrepancies.

[allsmiles]

how about the fact that god doesn't live just above the clouds like the author of Genesis surmised? seems that their god is only as knowledgeable as the people portraying him.

 

[Jukia]

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

But did He then "confuse their language"?

 

[allsmiles]

doesn't sound like they were being very foolish to me, according to your god's own admission, nothing they would plan to do would be impossible for them, including building a tower into heaven.

 

[Granite]

Exactly--building a tower would have worked!

What exactly was Jehovah and his company afraid of?

 

[allsmiles]

think of it, they were of one language, one purpose, one goal and even according to the supreme deity of the entire universe, the accomplishment of that goal was well within their grasp.

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

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

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

 

[bob b]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[hatsoff]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[bob b]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[hatsoff]

It is possible to reconcile any Biblical contradiction... if you presuppose inerrancy. But that is not a logical supposition.

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

 

[allsmiles]

oooh oooh!!!

:wave2:

i have another discrepancy!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

thank you!

 

[bob b]

what i'd like to know is, if these books were divinely inspired, what's with all of the little flaws like this one?

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

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

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

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

 

[allsmiles]

so is the indiscrepancy evidence of divine inspiration?

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

 

[Jukia]

Or perhaps it is all part of God's plan to deceive/confuse us. If that be the case, it simply makes no sense for God to do that.

 

[bob b]

so is the indiscrepancy evidence of divine inspiration?

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

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

Such is human nature.

 

[allsmiles]

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

Such is human nature.

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

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

 

[allsmiles]

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

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

 

[hatsoff]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[bob b]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Jukia]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[bob b]

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

It is revealed in the book The Plot.