Jump to content

Interactive Chart Of Bible Contradictions


florduh
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Super Moderator

I dropped this amazing new resource in the Den because I figured there may be some who would like to argue with it.

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/08/19/an-incredible-interactive-chart-of-biblical-contradictions/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love BibViz! It's fun to use and very useful when I feel like debating my dad. yellow.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an amazing work!! I'm carful when arguing about biblical contradiction because many of them are not "necessarily" contradictions, but there's no clear way to now they aren't. Of course, the standard apologetic technique is to infer things into the text that the text does not actually say in order to reconcile them, which amounts to nothing but speculation. There are, however, several direct textual contradictions like how old Jehoakim was when he became king, how many men David killed, etc. One of my favorites is comparing all the places where god says he detests human sacrifice but accepts the sacrifice of Jephtah's daughter in Judges 11. Apologists try to weasel out of that one but the text is as about as plain as it can be. The Hebrew word for burnt offering is the one they almost always use for a literal burnt offering. Direct contradictions destroyed my faith in biblical inerrancy. Then, the moral contradictions did me in. I also learned a lot about how much of the stories, particularly in the Old Testament, were influenced by other religions. Abraham did not have some new revelation of a THE ONE TRUE GOD. His god was derived from the ancient Canaanite religion directly. He even uses the names of their most high god when talking about it, El, El-Elyon, El-Shadai, and later Elohim (implies belief in many gods). The abrahamic story describes god and his encounters with him in pagan style motif. These are just a few of the details that lead to my disbelief in the bible and ultimately god. There are many contradiction in the New Testament gospels as well. The biggest problem with them as that can't know for sure what Jesus really said, because the gospels are written accounts of oral tales about Jesus. And oral societies weren't interested in word for word accuracy. They would even deliberately change the details to get the central message across to whoever their audience was. With gospels written decades after Jesus, there's just no way to know what he really said. Mark is likely the earliest at around 30 A.D. if I remember right. And there is strong evidence that the other three get their information from Mark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As representing part of the loyal opposition here 

I submit this resource: 

 

Jim Merritt's Bible Contradiction List Answered

 

The following replies are to alleged Biblical contradictions cited by Jim Meritt (not a Bible scholar, but an oceanographer) on the web page,  "A List of Biblical Contradictions"  at http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/extra/bible-contradictions.html. I've covered most of his entries on this page; now as I have developed this website as an encyclopedia, we turned this into a matter of brief comments on individual points made uniquely by Meritt, followed by links to solutions to contradictions.

Meritt begins with explanations of various methods I've seen to "explain" alleged contradictions and errors. These require a reply first.

 

1. "That is to be taken metaphorically" In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD - which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want...

Meritt is correct to chastise those who manipulate the Bible to support doctrines of their own invention. However, this does not mean that the Bible - which is, after all, a composition of literature - cannot make use of literary techniques such as metaphor. This objection cannot be offered to replace critical evaluation, and merely begs the question of whether something is or is not being taken as "the absolute Word of God" (note that saying that something is metaphorical is not necessarily somehow saying it is not absolute; that's another issue) without reference to genre considerations.

 

From: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/merrit01.php

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The parts of the Bible that are false were obviously meant as allegory or metaphor.   It's only the parts of the Bible that are true that are meant to be taken literally.  God didn't tell us what parts are true and what parts are false because God wanted us to figure that out on our own using science.  It's how God maintains His mysterious ways.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

As representing part of the loyal opposition here 

I submit this resource: 

 

Jim Merritt's Bible Contradiction List Answered

 

The following replies are to alleged Biblical contradictions cited by Jim Meritt (not a Bible scholar, but an oceanographer)

Funny how the christians feel the need to point out that Meritt is an oceanographer not a bible scholar, yet many of our resident bible "scholars" want to speak to us about science, despite being biblical "scholars" and not scientists.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As representing part of the loyal opposition here 

I submit this resource: 

 

Jim Merritt's Bible Contradiction List Answered

Naturally, Bible Contradictions websites elicit Bible Contradictions Answered websites.

 

I agree that many alleged contradictions are not so. But many others are. And you don't need hundreds to falsify the inerrancy position. Technically, you only need one.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

As representing part of the loyal opposition here 

I submit this resource: 

 

Jim Merritt's Bible Contradiction List Answered

 

The following replies are to alleged Biblical contradictions cited by Jim Meritt (not a Bible scholar, but an oceanographer) on the web page,  "A List of Biblical Contradictions"  at http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/extra/bible-contradictions.html. I've covered most of his entries on this page; now as I have developed this website as an encyclopedia, we turned this into a matter of brief comments on individual points made uniquely by Meritt, followed by links to solutions to contradictions.

Meritt begins with explanations of various methods I've seen to "explain" alleged contradictions and errors. These require a reply first.

 

1. "That is to be taken metaphorically" In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD - which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want...

 

Meritt is correct to chastise those who manipulate the Bible to support doctrines of their own invention. However, this does not mean that the Bible - which is, after all, a composition of literature - cannot make use of literary techniques such as metaphor. This objection cannot be offered to replace critical evaluation, and merely begs the question of whether something is or is not being taken as "the absolute Word of God" (note that saying that something is metaphorical is not necessarily somehow saying it is not absolute; that's another issue) without reference to genre considerations.

 

From: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/merrit01.php

That infidels.org page appears to have been taken down.  It forwards to a page with links about Atheism.  That tekton dude who goes by JPH gets on my nerves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meritt couldn't have been a scientist... if he'd lived and died before the Protestant Reformation.

 

wink.png

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

^ ^ ^

 

is it J.P. Holding?

Yes.  His real name is Robert Turkel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As representing part of the loyal opposition here

I submit this resource:

 

Jim Merritt's Bible Contradiction List Answered

 

The following replies are to alleged Biblical contradictions cited by Jim Meritt (not a Bible scholar, but an oceanographer) on the web page, "A List of Biblical Contradictions" at http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/extra/bible-contradictions.html. I've covered most of his entries on this page; now as I have developed this website as an encyclopedia, we turned this into a matter of brief comments on individual points made uniquely by Meritt, followed by links to solutions to contradictions.

Meritt begins with explanations of various methods I've seen to "explain" alleged contradictions and errors. These require a reply first.

 

1. "That is to be taken metaphorically" In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD - which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want...

 

Meritt is correct to chastise those who manipulate the Bible to support doctrines of their own invention. However, this does not mean that the Bible - which is, after all, a composition of literature - cannot make use of literary techniques such as metaphor. This objection cannot be offered to replace critical evaluation, and merely begs the question of whether something is or is not being taken as "the absolute Word of God" (note that saying that something is metaphorical is not necessarily somehow saying it is not absolute; that's another issue) without reference to genre considerations.

 

From: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/merrit01.php

While your point is true, how do you critically evaluate which parts of the bible are literally true and which ones aren't? You're pushing scripture into a relm of non-falsifiability by holding the metaphor card behind your back to use whenever you see fit.

 

It's either all literal (which it cannot be due to the existence of contradictions), or it's all metaphor (which it maybe in it's central points, and thus contains no literal truth in it's central points but is only analogous to humanity's quest to find meaning and solve intrapersonal and interpersonal problems, which is not unique to any one religion or secular philosophy), or it's partly literal and partly metaphorical (the possition that most Christians take, which is somewhat reasonable since it recognizes the literal contradictions, but bears the burden of proof to demonstrate the truth of it's literal claims, which it has not).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

As representing part of the loyal opposition here

I submit this resource:

 

Jim Merritt's Bible Contradiction List Answered

 

The following replies are to alleged Biblical contradictions cited by Jim Meritt (not a Bible scholar, but an oceanographer) on the web page, "A List of Biblical Contradictions" at http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/extra/bible-contradictions.html. I've covered most of his entries on this page; now as I have developed this website as an encyclopedia, we turned this into a matter of brief comments on individual points made uniquely by Meritt, followed by links to solutions to contradictions.

Meritt begins with explanations of various methods I've seen to "explain" alleged contradictions and errors. These require a reply first.

 

1. "That is to be taken metaphorically" In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD - which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want...

 

Meritt is correct to chastise those who manipulate the Bible to support doctrines of their own invention. However, this does not mean that the Bible - which is, after all, a composition of literature - cannot make use of literary techniques such as metaphor. This objection cannot be offered to replace critical evaluation, and merely begs the question of whether something is or is not being taken as "the absolute Word of God" (note that saying that something is metaphorical is not necessarily somehow saying it is not absolute; that's another issue) without reference to genre considerations.

 

From: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/merrit01.php

While your point is true, how do you critically evaluate which parts of the bible are literally true and which ones aren't? You're pushing scripture into a relm of non-falsifiability by holding the metaphor card behind your back to use whenever you see fit.

 

It's either all literal (which it cannot be due to the existence of contradictions), or it's all metaphor (which it maybe in it's central points, and thus contains no literal truth in it's central points but is only analogous to humanity's quest to find meaning and solve intrapersonal and interpersonal problems, which is not unique to any one religion or secular philosophy), or it's partly literal and partly metaphorical (the possition that most Christians take, which is somewhat reasonable since it recognizes the literal contradictions, but bears the burden of proof to demonstrate the truth of it's literal claims, which it has not).

 

 

"how do you critically evaluate which parts of the bible are literally true and which ones aren't?"

 

The devil, for some who are critical of the scriptures, is in the details. 

They insist that these contradiction invalidates the scripture of any truth. 

 

I don't see it that way. I invite you and others to check the link I posted or find

other Christian apologetic sites that have studied these contradictions. 

 

To answer your question: I view the main message of the Bible as true. The message I

take as literal. When I come to passages that contradict other passages, I read and study.

I don't have the answer for every bible question. It doesn't deter my belief.

My faith is based on my relationship with Christ, not in understanding every so called

contradiction or every passage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

Ironhorse, perhaps you would care to define your "relationship" with christ for us.  

 

1.  Tell us all the things we missed out on when we had a "relationship" with christ.  

 

2.  Explain to us how your "relationship" with christ allows you to overlook what are truly glaring inconsistencies and contradictions in the bible.  

 

3.  Tell us how your "relationship" with christ affects whether or not you believe the bible to be the inspired word of god.

 

4.  Tell us how your "relationship" with christ affects whether or not you believe the bible to be inerrant and infallible?

 

5.  Please explain how your "relationship" with christ allows you to continue believing that the good book is TRUETM, when, by your own admission, it contradicts itself.

 

Yes, Ironhorse, tell us all about your "relationship" with christ.  We want to know, because it's not like any of us ever had a "relationship" with him.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"how do you critically evaluate which parts of the bible are literally true and which ones aren't?"

 

The devil, for some who are critical of the scriptures, is in the details. 

They insist that these contradiction invalidates the scripture of any truth. 

 

I don't see it that way. I invite you and others to check the link I posted or find

other Christian apologetic sites that have studied these contradictions. 

 

To answer your question: I view the main message of the Bible as true. The message I

take as literal. When I come to passages that contradict other passages, I read and study.

I don't have the answer for every bible question. It doesn't deter my belief.

My faith is based on my relationship with Christ, not in understanding every so called

contradiction or every passage.

 

 

How can you critically evaluate which parts of a confidence scam are literally true and which ones aren't?

 

 

The devil, for some who are critical of confidence scams, is in the details. 

They insist that these contradiction invalidates the confidence scam of any truth. 

 

I don't see it that way. I invite you and others to check the link I posted:

 

www (dot) retired_nigerian_president_wants_to_share_half_of_40million_dollars_with_you (dot) coN

 

or find other confidence scam sites that have studied these contradictions. 

 

To answer your question: I view the main message of the confidence scam as true. The message I

take as literal. When I come to parts that contradict other parts, I read and study.

I don't have the answer for every confidence scam question. It doesn't deter my belief.

My faith is based on my relationship with the retired president of Nigeria, not in understanding every so called

contradiction or every passage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ironhorse,

 

I have studied apologetics, many. That's part of what lead to my atheism. And no, I don't say that contradictions invalidate scripture of any truth. Some of the historical details are true we know. My point is that the supernatural claims in the bible have no valid basis to be viewed as true. You accept these claims on faith. You must because there is no evidence validating the claims that god exists, he cares about humanity, Jesus as god's sun, Jesus' death absolves us of guilt over sin, the resurrection of the dead, heaven, hell, etc. If you agree that you take your beliefs on faith that's fine. But that is the fundamental difference. For me, and others here, faith is not an acceptable basis for belief. Faith has consistently been shown to be no path to what is good or true. Many people have and do believe all sorts of false things on faith. Some of the worst human atrocities have been committed because of faith. Due to faith's terrible track record, I'm disinclined to base my beliefs on it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer your question: I view the main message of the Bible as true. The message I

take as literal. When I come to passages that contradict other passages, I read and study.

I don't have the answer for every bible question. It doesn't deter my belief.

My faith is based on my relationship with Christ, not in understanding every so called

contradiction or every passage.

Ironhorse, I am glad that your experience is working for you. I hope you understand that we had the very same experience, different little details but same substance. We believed/felt/thought that we were having a relationship with Christ. We, like you, would say, "Little contradictions come up in my relationship with my loved ones, but I know them face to face, and that makes sense of documents about them. That makes sense of the little things I don't understand. Same with my Lord."

 

I think you understand why in good conscience we could not go on with that anymore. Why we realized there is not symmetry between a flesh and blood friendship and the thing we thought we had with Christ.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

As representing part of the loyal opposition here

I submit this resource:

 

Jim Merritt's Bible Contradiction List Answered

 

The following replies are to alleged Biblical contradictions cited by Jim Meritt (not a Bible scholar, but an oceanographer) on the web page, "A List of Biblical Contradictions" at http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/extra/bible-contradictions.html. I've covered most of his entries on this page; now as I have developed this website as an encyclopedia, we turned this into a matter of brief comments on individual points made uniquely by Meritt, followed by links to solutions to contradictions.

Meritt begins with explanations of various methods I've seen to "explain" alleged contradictions and errors. These require a reply first.

 

1. "That is to be taken metaphorically" In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD - which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want...

 

Meritt is correct to chastise those who manipulate the Bible to support doctrines of their own invention. However, this does not mean that the Bible - which is, after all, a composition of literature - cannot make use of literary techniques such as metaphor. This objection cannot be offered to replace critical evaluation, and merely begs the question of whether something is or is not being taken as "the absolute Word of God" (note that saying that something is metaphorical is not necessarily somehow saying it is not absolute; that's another issue) without reference to genre considerations.

 

From: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/merrit01.php

While your point is true, how do you critically evaluate which parts of the bible are literally true and which ones aren't? You're pushing scripture into a relm of non-falsifiability by holding the metaphor card behind your back to use whenever you see fit.

 

It's either all literal (which it cannot be due to the existence of contradictions), or it's all metaphor (which it maybe in it's central points, and thus contains no literal truth in it's central points but is only analogous to humanity's quest to find meaning and solve intrapersonal and interpersonal problems, which is not unique to any one religion or secular philosophy), or it's partly literal and partly metaphorical (the possition that most Christians take, which is somewhat reasonable since it recognizes the literal contradictions, but bears the burden of proof to demonstrate the truth of it's literal claims, which it has not).

 

 

"how do you critically evaluate which parts of the bible are literally true and which ones aren't?"

 

The devil, for some who are critical of the scriptures, is in the details. 

They insist that these contradiction invalidates the scripture of any truth. 

 

I don't see it that way. I invite you and others to check the link I posted or find

other Christian apologetic sites that have studied these contradictions. 

 

To answer your question: I view the main message of the Bible as true. The message I

take as literal. When I come to passages that contradict other passages, I read and study.

I don't have the answer for every bible question. It doesn't deter my belief.

My faith is based on my relationship with Christ, not in understanding every so called

contradiction or every passage.

 

So then you admit that the bible cannot be understood by ordinary christians?

 

And you admit that there are --at the very least-- apparent contradictions?

 

Why would a perfect being be unable to communicate in a more clear and reliable way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"how do you critically evaluate which parts of the bible are literally true and which ones aren't?"

 

The devil, for some who are critical of the scriptures, is in the details. 

They insist that these contradiction invalidates the scripture of any truth. 

 

I don't see it that way. I invite you and others to check the link I posted or find

other Christian apologetic sites that have studied these contradictions. 

 

To answer your question: I view the main message of the Bible as true. The message I

take as literal. When I come to passages that contradict other passages, I read and study.

I don't have the answer for every bible question. It doesn't deter my belief.

My faith is based on my relationship with Christ, not in understanding every so called

contradiction or every passage.

 

 

There's the problem.  IH's (and other apologists) "study" is not really an honest study at all.  He finally admits that his "studies" are nothing more than him looking for confirmation on what he believes. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

"how do you critically evaluate which parts of the bible are literally true and which ones aren't?"

 

The devil, for some who are critical of the scriptures, is in the details. 

They insist that these contradiction invalidates the scripture of any truth. 

 

I don't see it that way. I invite you and others to check the link I posted or find

other Christian apologetic sites that have studied these contradictions. 

 

To answer your question: I view the main message of the Bible as true. The message I

take as literal. When I come to passages that contradict other passages, I read and study.

I don't have the answer for every bible question. It doesn't deter my belief.

My faith is based on my relationship with Christ, not in understanding every so called

contradiction or every passage.

 

 

Ironhorse,

 

Your 'relationship' with Christ is biasing your understanding of history.  As evidenced in this thread... http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/62720-no-shit-sherlock/page-26#.U8eHnPldVzM

 

So, when you, 'view the main message of the Bible as true' ...you can't mean that to apply to the historical content of scripture.  Unless your understanding of history is being...SELECTIVELY ...biased by your 'relationship' with Christ?

 

And if your understanding of history isn't being biased by your 'relationship' with Christ, then you should accept what the historical record has to say without hesitation, equivocation or delay, right?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

As representing part of the loyal opposition here

I submit this resource:

 

Jim Merritt's Bible Contradiction List Answered

 

The following replies are to alleged Biblical contradictions cited by Jim Meritt (not a Bible scholar, but an oceanographer) on the web page, "A List of Biblical Contradictions" at http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/extra/bible-contradictions.html. I've covered most of his entries on this page; now as I have developed this website as an encyclopedia, we turned this into a matter of brief comments on individual points made uniquely by Meritt, followed by links to solutions to contradictions.

Meritt begins with explanations of various methods I've seen to "explain" alleged contradictions and errors. These require a reply first.

 

1. "That is to be taken metaphorically" In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD - which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want...

 

Meritt is correct to chastise those who manipulate the Bible to support doctrines of their own invention. However, this does not mean that the Bible - which is, after all, a composition of literature - cannot make use of literary techniques such as metaphor. This objection cannot be offered to replace critical evaluation, and merely begs the question of whether something is or is not being taken as "the absolute Word of God" (note that saying that something is metaphorical is not necessarily somehow saying it is not absolute; that's another issue) without reference to genre considerations.

 

From: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/merrit01.php

While your point is true, how do you critically evaluate which parts of the bible are literally true and which ones aren't? You're pushing scripture into a relm of non-falsifiability by holding the metaphor card behind your back to use whenever you see fit.

 

It's either all literal (which it cannot be due to the existence of contradictions), or it's all metaphor (which it maybe in it's central points, and thus contains no literal truth in it's central points but is only analogous to humanity's quest to find meaning and solve intrapersonal and interpersonal problems, which is not unique to any one religion or secular philosophy), or it's partly literal and partly metaphorical (the possition that most Christians take, which is somewhat reasonable since it recognizes the literal contradictions, but bears the burden of proof to demonstrate the truth of it's literal claims, which it has not).

"how do you critically evaluate which parts of the bible are literally true and which ones aren't?"

 

The devil, for some who are critical of the scriptures, is in the details.

They insist that these contradiction invalidates the scripture of any truth.

 

I don't see it that way. I invite you and others to check the link I posted or find

other Christian apologetic sites that have studied these contradictions.

 

To answer your question: I view the main message of the Bible as true. The message I

take as literal. When I come to passages that contradict other passages, I read and study.

I don't have the answer for every bible question. It doesn't deter my belief.

My faith is based on my relationship with Christ, not in understanding every so called

contradiction or every passage.

So in other words, you don't critically evaluate the bible. Got it. Don't think I miss understand you. I fully understand what you mean about basing your understanding of the bible on your relationship with Christ. I was a passionate Christian for over 20 years. I loved Jesus and the scriptures with all my heart, felt "god's presence" in worship. Read the bible and felt moved by it's depth, even felt like god gave me divine revelation about what the scriptures mean. I spoke in tongues. I talked about my relationship with Jesus all the time and even won a few of my friends to Christ. I know what you're talking about. I would dare say that I believed it and loved it more that you do now. All of these emotional bases of Christianity can be perfectly explained by psychology and the fact that we are emotional an social creatures. As I'm sure you know, those feelings don't hang around and they aren't reliable. People of other religions report similar experiences, but that doesn't add validity to the supernatural claims of their religion, not for Christianity. The fact is Ironhorse, there are inescapable direct contradictions, logically incoherent concepts, and moral contradictions within the text of the bible. Many of the direct contradictions are the result of transcription errors, but wait! The bible is supposedly the "inerrant" word of god. Why would god be so concerned with inerrancy in the original manuscripts (as apologists say) and not be concerned with maintaining it in the subsequent copies? Why inspire the original authors an not the subsequent transcribers to make sure it stayed without error? If you believe that the bible is "inerrant" then any exception renders that a false statement. If you accept that there are errors but you take it to be the word of god anyway by the "guiding of the Holy Spirit" then you are simply cherry picking. Sorry IH, your appeal to your "relationship with Christ" is an appeal to emotion, that you just feel like it's right. Emotion is absolutely no reliable indicator of truth. If you use it in an attempt to find truth, you usually don't find it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

"how do you critically evaluate which parts of the bible are literally true and which ones aren't?"

 

The devil, for some who are critical of the scriptures, is in the details. 

They insist that these contradiction invalidates the scripture of any truth. 

 

 

Strawman fallacy.  "They" insist no such thing.  "They" simply conclude that the existence of Biblical contradictions refute any theist claim of Biblical innerancy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

As representing part of the loyal opposition here

I submit this resource:

 

Jim Merritt's Bible Contradiction List Answered

 

The following replies are to alleged Biblical contradictions cited by Jim Meritt (not a Bible scholar, but an oceanographer) on the web page, "A List of Biblical Contradictions" at http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/extra/bible-contradictions.html. I've covered most of his entries on this page; now as I have developed this website as an encyclopedia, we turned this into a matter of brief comments on individual points made uniquely by Meritt, followed by links to solutions to contradictions.

Meritt begins with explanations of various methods I've seen to "explain" alleged contradictions and errors. These require a reply first.

 

1. "That is to be taken metaphorically" In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD - which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want...

 

Meritt is correct to chastise those who manipulate the Bible to support doctrines of their own invention. However, this does not mean that the Bible - which is, after all, a composition of literature - cannot make use of literary techniques such as metaphor. This objection cannot be offered to replace critical evaluation, and merely begs the question of whether something is or is not being taken as "the absolute Word of God" (note that saying that something is metaphorical is not necessarily somehow saying it is not absolute; that's another issue) without reference to genre considerations.

 

From: http://www.tektonics.org/lp/merrit01.php

While your point is true, how do you critically evaluate which parts of the bible are literally true and which ones aren't? You're pushing scripture into a relm of non-falsifiability by holding the metaphor card behind your back to use whenever you see fit.

 

It's either all literal (which it cannot be due to the existence of contradictions), or it's all metaphor (which it maybe in it's central points, and thus contains no literal truth in it's central points but is only analogous to humanity's quest to find meaning and solve intrapersonal and interpersonal problems, which is not unique to any one religion or secular philosophy), or it's partly literal and partly metaphorical (the possition that most Christians take, which is somewhat reasonable since it recognizes the literal contradictions, but bears the burden of proof to demonstrate the truth of it's literal claims, which it has not).

"how do you critically evaluate which parts of the bible are literally true and which ones aren't?"

 

The devil, for some who are critical of the scriptures, is in the details.

They insist that these contradiction invalidates the scripture of any truth.

 

I don't see it that way. I invite you and others to check the link I posted or find

other Christian apologetic sites that have studied these contradictions.

 

To answer your question: I view the main message of the Bible as true. The message I

take as literal. When I come to passages that contradict other passages, I read and study.

I don't have the answer for every bible question. It doesn't deter my belief.

My faith is based on my relationship with Christ, not in understanding every so called

contradiction or every passage.

So in other words, you don't critically evaluate the bible. Got it. Don't think I miss understand you. I fully understand what you mean about basing your understanding of the bible on your relationship with Christ. I was a passionate Christian for over 20 years. I loved Jesus and the scriptures with all my heart, felt "god's presence" in worship. Read the bible and felt moved by it's depth, even felt like god gave me divine revelation about what the scriptures mean. I spoke in tongues. I talked about my relationship with Jesus all the time and even won a few of my friends to Christ. I know what you're talking about. I would dare say that I believed it and loved it more that you do now. All of these emotional bases of Christianity can be perfectly explained by psychology and the fact that we are emotional an social creatures. As I'm sure you know, those feelings don't hang around and they aren't reliable. People of other religions report similar experiences, but that doesn't add validity to the supernatural claims of their religion, not for Christianity. The fact is Ironhorse, there are inescapable direct contradictions, logically incoherent concepts, and moral contradictions within the text of the bible. Many of the direct contradictions are the result of transcription errors, but wait! The bible is supposedly the "inerrant" word of god. Why would god be so concerned with inerrancy in the original manuscripts (as apologists say) and not be concerned with maintaining it in the subsequent copies? Why inspire the original authors an not the subsequent transcribers to make sure it stayed without error? If you believe that the bible is "inerrant" then any exception renders that a false statement. If you accept that there are errors but you take it to be the word of god anyway by the "guiding of the Holy Spirit" then you are simply cherry picking. Sorry IH, your appeal to your "relationship with Christ" is an appeal to emotion, that you just feel like it's right. Emotion is absolutely no reliable indicator of truth. If you use it in an attempt to find truth, you usually don't find it.

 

 

Thanks for your reply Neverlandrut. 

Some comments on what you posted:

 

"All of these emotional bases of Christianity can be perfectly explained by psychology and the fact that we are emotional an social creatures. As I'm sure you know, those feelings don't hang around and they aren't reliable."

 

Your experience as a Christian it seems have been different from mine. I was not raised in a Pentecostal or charismatic church.

I have watched them on religious TV they seem to do  a lot of tugging at the heart strings and bringing people to some emotional high. Knowing God and getting closer to God seems to be based on getting a person to "feel" God's presence or "hear" his voice. They also seem to stress getting some "special revelation or word" from God.

 

All of that is very contrary to how my parents raised me and my experiences in a Baptist church. I have never tested my faith in Christ by the way I feel at any given time. I have had a few devastating experiences in my life and I wasn't feeling God all all or even angry with God...or questioning God.

 

NOTE: My wife just informed me...it's time to go out for lunch. So, I will stop here and then finish it or follow up later today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.