Biblical Contradictions/Difficulties?

[laurion]

The leaders of the Catholic church at the time of Galileo clearly believed it to be true.  

Do you you dispute that fact?

NO

did you even bother to read the result of your random google search?

YES

the entire link can't be boiled down to this sentence:  Thus, whether miraculous or not, to say that these verses teach that the Earth continues to stand still, and that the Earth is the center of the Universe, is both a gross misinterpretation and a misapplication of the verse.

Whoops - just a simple mistake of reading the words and drawing the wrong conclusion and then of course misapplying that mistake. It could happen to anyone really.

Those silly cardinals and the pope just make the mistake of misinterpreting their own book.

how convenient  

again

1st. NO

2nd.

[Straw Man]

So basically the bible is always right and any contradictions are just the error of interpretation by man?

[laurion]

So basically the bible is always right and any contradictions are just the error of interpretation by man?

I was gonna say that nooooo God is always right...... but you know what you have convinced me otherwise I formally adopt your ideas and philosophical beliefs and further more THANK YOU for taking the time to train my mind to ask questions about the world on which I live!

Straw Man bringing change in 08!!!!!!

[laurion]

Straw Man gave me a choice, a simple choice, red pill or blue pill.  I chose to see just how far the rabbit hole went, and it much like the faithless was very shallow.  But there is a comfort in the shallowness, a freedom in not believing in a higher power.  For I much like a slave or a soldier was very VERY misinformed.

[Straw Man]

I was gonna say that nooooo God is always right...... but you know what you have convinced me otherwise I formally adopt your ideas and philosophical beliefs and further more THANK YOU for taking the time to train my mind to ask questions about the world on which I live!

Straw Man bringing change in 08!!!!!!

Your googlized response basically boils down to the assertion that question/controversy of goecentrism was an error of interpretation.   The leaders of the catholic church at the time clearly believed that they were the authority in interpretation so your simple answer of "NO" to my initial question makes no sense.

[laurion]

Your googlized response basically boils down to the assertion that question/controversy of goecentrism was an error of interpretation.   The leaders of the catholic church at the time clearly believed that they were the authority in interpretation so your simple answer of "NO" to my initial question makes no sense.

Before my answer tho short was not so simple as a small "NO" because it then affirmed my previous post that Men were fallible even if God is not.

However I have since swapped views so, yea take that you stupid faithfull always so faithfull that their life has a purpose.

[Straw Man]

Before my answer tho short was not so simple as a small "NO" because it then affirmed my previous post that Men were fallible even if God is not.

However I have since swapped views so, yea take that you stupid faithfull always so faithfull that their life has a purpose.

you're getting a little defensive aren't you.  When did I ever mock your personal faith.

I posted a simple question and you responded back with an even more simple answer (one word "NO")

and then you quoted yourself (and you actually edited your own words from the original quote which is probably something the guys who wrote/rewrote/translated) the bible did a lot too.

Your answer to my question was "NO" and then you quoted yourself as follows:

God who inspired the book may be infallible but humans who penned it are prone to all kinds of errors... 

your original quote was:

God who inspired the book may be infallible but humans who penned it are prone to all kinds of sin... 

Was it merely a sin/error of the part of the catholic church to believe that the bible suggests the sun revolves around the earth?

we know you think that god exists and is infallible and that's fine but what about the bible?  Isn't that what this thread is about? 

[Necrosis]

Before my answer tho short was not so simple as a small "NO" because it then affirmed my previous post that Men were fallible even if God is not.

However I have since swapped views so, yea take that you stupid faithfull always so faithfull that their life has a purpose.

typical response, dont try and think just stay in the confines of your box of irrationality. Thinking is to hard, believe in jesus or go to hell.

[Straw Man]

typical response, dont try and think just stay in the confines of your box of irrationality. Thinking is to hard, believe in jesus or go to hell.

ironically, that is the "good news"

[laurion]

you're getting a little defensive aren't you.  When did I ever mock your personal faith.

I posted a simple question and you responded back with an even more simple answer (one word "NO")

and then you quoted yourself (and you actually edited your own words from the original quote which is probably something the guys who wrote/rewrote/translated) the bible did a lot too.

Your answer to my question was "NO" and then you quoted yourself as follows:

your original quote was:

Was it merely a sin/error of the part of the catholic church to believe that the bible suggests the sun revolves around the earth?
we know you think that god exists and is infallible and that's fine but what about the bible?  Isn't that what this thread is about? 

Listen I find it funny that my original point was and always has been that .......

People who pay too close attention the the "details" of stories miss the forest for the trees.  They are much like the Pharisees and Saducees of Jesus' time who were so caught up with their ancient written scrolls waiting for a leader of war and liberator of their people that they missed the pacifist liberator of their people.

Which I meant as saying that people pay way too much time reading a book (one which is a wonderful road map to life no doubt) when they should actively try to commune personally with God.  A persons spiritual journey is a personal journey but can be used to inspire others toward a better life, hence a book with a bunch of stories was written to help those who came after Christ.

So.... to your query above I will respond as I have tried to in past posts but more definitively that yes I do believe God is infallible and no I do not believe the bible is because it was written by man.

"typical response, dont try and think just stay in the confines of your box of irrationality. Thinking is to hard, believe in jesus or go to hell."

By the way I actually do not believe in hell and I do not see that anywhere in my response.... I have found my own faith which some may label radical but I feel fits me the best it's what I choose to believe.  And because I don't feel as if I have all the answers to all of mans questions regarding God or "the afterlife" mainly because God has not revealed them all to me I like to think God will give me a repreave for not being correct if I screw a few up.  

Ok?  are we done here cause I think I am.....

[Straw Man]

So.... to your query above I will respond as I have tried to in past posts but more definitively that yes I do believe God is infallible and no I do not believe the bible is because it was written by man.

this is all you needed to say but you're aware that this opens a whole other can of worms.

We're left with an infallible god (and what kind of god would he/she/it be if they weren't) and a very fallible book written by a bunch of anonymous men

What part of the bible in complete nonsense and should be ignored and what part is from the "infallible god" ....if any?

btw - since you believe the bible was written by man and prone to errors why did you say "no" to my original question.

Why not just say yes but that it's an error (like the hundreds/perhaps thousands of other errors) 

[laurion]

this is all you needed to say but you're aware that this opens a whole other can of worms.

We're left with an infallible god (and what kind of god would he/she/it be if they weren't) and a very fallible book written by a bunch of anonymous men

What part of the bible in complete nonsense and should be ignored and what part is from the "infallible god" ....if any?

Short answer, the details........ Who cares if "Adam and Eve" ever existed, people sin.  Who cares if God flooded the earth, people sucked .  Who cares if God created everything in 6 days or if it was just a symbol, God created everything.  etc...... Get my point?  Just take from the bible what you need for your personal spiritual journey and don't kill people when they disagree with them.  Spiritualism is inherently good it's religion that causes war.......

btw - since you believe was written by man and prone to errors why did you say "no" to my original question.

Maybe I'm missunderstanding your original question I don't know, I'm sorry    I said "NO" because I did not dispute your fact.... They did believe it, they were wrong.  Just because they were the heads of the Catholic church doesn't make them perfect, and believe me I am in no way defending Catholicism.  Ever made a mistake?  Well they are also as human.   

Why not just say yes but that it's an error (like the hundreds/perhaps thousands of other errors) 

[Straw Man]

Maybe I'm missunderstanding your original question I don't know, I'm sorry    I said "NO" because I did not dispute your fact.... They did believe it, they were wrong.

uh...ok but you didn't seem to be confused when you initially responded no and then went on to attempt to defend that position (not trying to be a dick just saying it seemed pretty obvious).   

Now that we've agreed that the bible has errors - what other parts do you think are errors?

[liberalismo]

Oops yes that's right.  Sorry, I typed humans by mistake!  I meant beasts.

Now to what I think you will refer next...Gen 2:19 ..is that correct?

In Genesis 1 it says that Beasts came first.

In Genesis 2 it says that Humans came first, and beasts were made for company.

Ultimately it was God who did it.  According to Gen 19:24, God did it.  Could he have done it through the 2 angels?  I believe sure He could have.  But maybe He didn't.

I know you are referring to Gen 19:13 also.  This does not confirm that the angels DID it or not.   I suppose it could also mean that collectively it may be done.

But Genesis 19:13, the Angels tell that God sent them to destroy it. In Genesis 19:24 it says that God himself destroyed it with fire and brimstone.

Can you give me the scripture reference to which you are referring re: Abraham?

As for Jacob, no Jacob did not see God in unveiled form. 

Genesis 12:7
    And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.

Genesis 17:1
    And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him....


Genesis 32:30
    And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

Why should it?

Because if he hung himself, then that's how he died.

Does God oppose the killing of innocent people?
I guess He wouldn't consider anyone as "purely innocent."  Again, maybe you could just ask the question you're thinking about? 

Well, Exodus 23:7 says that "Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked."

So he clearly had a distinction between the innocent and righteous and the non-innocent or non-righteous.

Where did Aaron die?
I had to look this one up!  The question you are thinking about probably involves Deut 10:6 and Numbers 33:30.  Here is what I found after googling:

moserah” in Smith's Bible Dictionary
Mo´serah (bonds), Deut. 10:6, apparently the same as Moseroth, Num. 33:30, its plural form, the name of a place near Mount Hor.

No. Mosera is an Israelite station at the "foot" of Mt. Hor. Numbers 33:38 says that he went "up" Mt. Hor and died, but DT 10:6 says that he died at the foot of it.

[liberalismo]

The most acceptable explanation to me is that since God knows everything, past, present and future, that the feelings of repentance (sorrow etc) are understandable when bad things happen but I believe that God doesn't CHANGE what His intentions/plans are.

But I do think this is very interesting!  I would like MCWAY and loco's thoughts on this as I have wondered about it in the past.

If he "repents" on something, he is sorry for doing it and regrets it.

If he regrets something, then why did he do it to begin with since he knew that he would regret doing it?

If he 'had' to do it, then is he really all powerful as the bible says? He couldn't be.

Do you think that people with children don't know that at some point they will be disappointed w/them?

They don't know. They can "assume" that they might based on likelihood.

Humans can't create every aspect of their children as God did man. Science proves that Genetics plays a large role in human behavior, so God could easily have made some slight changes to humans so that they would not disappoint him, without ever affecting 'free will' beyond what it already is.

Yes. 

Maybe you missed this before:  What is your definition of Nephilim? 

Apparently they were Giants.

I believe He tests people but does not tempt them to sin.  You could just give me the scripture you're thinking about and I will try to address it

James 1:13 says that God doesn't tempt at all. Ever.

[laurion]

uh...ok but you didn't seem to be confused when you initially responded no and then went on to attempt to defend that position (not trying to be a dick just saying it seemed pretty obvious).   

Now that we've agreed that the bible has errors - what other parts do you think are errors?

Way over my head, or attention span 

[Straw Man]

Way over my head, or attention span 

really?

that might be part of the problem.

[Butterbean]

In Genesis 1 it says that Beasts came first.

In Genesis 2 it says that Humans came first, and beasts were made for company.

No.  Gen 2:19:  "Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air.  He brought them to the man to see what he would name them....."

But Genesis 19:13, the Angels tell that God sent them to destroy it. In Genesis 19:24 it says that God himself destroyed it with fire and brimstone.

You may have missed it but I already answered this.

Genesis 12:7
    And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.

Genesis 17:1
    And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him....


Genesis 32:30
    And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

As I said before, Jacob saw Him in veiled form.  God is invisible.  He can take on whatever form He wants if he wants someone to see something.  I see your difficulty w/these verses but they don't preclude Him appearing as "in the whirlwind" or fire etc. imo.

Because if he hung himself, then that's how he died.

I don't see it as a required statement.

Well, Exodus 23:7 says that "Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked."

So he clearly had a distinction between the innocent and righteous and the non-innocent or non-righteous.

Yeah, He's specifically talking about the legal system and not to carry out capital punishment on someone for a crime of which they are falsely accused.

No. Mosera is an Israelite station at the "foot" of Mt. Hor. Numbers 33:38 says that he went "up" Mt. Hor and died, but DT 10:6 says that he died at the foot of it.

Can you link me to your source please?

[Butterbean]

You rang!!???


Let's look at Ex. 32.14:

AHHHHH!!!! The old golden calf debacle. Moses interceded on behalf of the people, while they were praising "Bessie" for their deliverance from Egypt. It appears as if the Lord was going to punish the lot of them. Moses got the number cut down to about 3,000, which he and the Levties dealt the sentence themselves. Of course, in the end, Israel kept acting up, resulting in a two-week trip taking 40 years, during which "all of the generation who did evil in the sight of the Lord was consumed". So, I'd say God's sentence was merely delayed. He gave them mercy and they still disobeyed.

1 Sam 15. The Saul incident: Saul had already goofed up in several instances, yet the Lord had mercy on him, anyway. But the final straw came when it came to the Amalekites (cue Ozmo). After 300+ years of assaulting the Israelites unprovoked, the Amalekites had worn out their welcome with God's grace. The edict was given: No more Amalekites....They were to be destroyed, everyone and everything.

You know the rest. Saul spared the king (and a handful of other folks) and kept the choice lifestock, gold, and silver for himself. On top of all, he lied to Samuel's face, claiming he did the Lord's bidding and followed His instructions. A few "moos" and "baaahs" later, the jig was up. By failing to destroy one of Israel's most savage enemies and lying to the prophet, claiming that he'd done God's will, Saul had used up his final lifeline. The kingdom would be stripped from him and his family. GAME OVER!!!
 
You must also remember that God told Samuel, when he anointed Saul, that Israel ultimately rejected Him, when they demanded an earthly king. God wanted to spare them the headache and problems that usually occur in a regular monarchy. But, they weren't hearing it. Saul had a chance to steer the people's heart back to God. But, by his actions, he failed to do that.

Jer. 18:8 - The first half of that verse pretty much spells it out, regarding the nation of this particular scenario:

If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.


In all the verses and the nations/people listed, there's one common theme: A people/nation were steeped in wickedness. God thought to bring judgment on them. HOWEVER, He gave them the opportunity to repent and be spared. The Israelites got another chance; so did Saul; and so did the people of Judah.

Imagine that......God giving people a chance to repent of their sins. I thought He was Mr. Meanie!!!!

Thanks MCWAY!

If he "repents" on something, he is sorry for doing it and regrets it.

If he regrets something, then why did he do it to begin with since he knew that he would regret doing it?

If he 'had' to do it, then is he really all powerful as the bible says? He couldn't be.

Thought you'd find this interesting (from apologeticspress.org) also:

"If a wicked man turns from his wickedness, God no longer holds the threat against him. If a righteous man turns from righteousness to wickedness, God withdraws the previously promised blessings. It is precisely because God is immutable that His relationship to men, and/or His treatment of them, varies with the changes in their conduct. When the Scriptures thus speak of “God having repented,” the wording is accommodative (viz., written from a human vantage point). As Samuel Davidson has well said: “When repentance is attributed to God, it implies a change in His mode of dealing with men, such as would indicate on their part a change of purpose” (1843, p. 527). From a human vantage point, we view God’s act(s) as “repentance.” But, in reality, God’s immutable law has not changed one iota; only the response of man to that law has changed. Seen in this light, God cannot be accused of any self-contradictory attributes."

They don't know. They can "assume" that they might based on likelihood.

Humans can't create every aspect of their children as God did man. Science proves that Genetics plays a large role in human behavior, so God could easily have made some slight changes to humans so that they would not disappoint him, without ever affecting 'free will' beyond what it already is.

God created man w/o sin.  Man, through free will chose to sin and sin entered the world. 

I don't see how you mean to not affect free will as it is by changing man a little?  It would affect it, right?

And humans still choose to have babies knowing (or assuming) that they will disappoint in the future. 

Apparently they were Giants.

Maybe, maybe not.  Some say they were great warriors. If Nephilium is a word for great warriors or whatever, they are just people.

[laurion]

really?

that might be part of the problem.

sigh

[Straw Man]

let's focus on areas where we agree.

What other parts of the bible do you think are errors made by the human authors?

[laurion]

let's focus on areas where we agree.

What other parts of the bible do you think are errors made by the human authors?

Anything people argue about..... I mean every time someone questions the authenticity of the Bible it's always about the same stupid things, any inconsistency or something science can't explain (or can for that matter) in the Bible is always on debate.  And why?  Why does it matter one way or the other why do people waste their time attempting to defend these things they themselves don't have the answers to.  All of these variables that can't be explained now also couldn't be explained then, why?, because humans don't have all the answers (Surprise Surprise).  Then you may ask, why would the human authors write about what they didn't have conclusive evidence for?  To that I say like any inquisitive mind they simply filled in the blanks to the best of their knowledge, an educated guess if you will.  We always look for the most obvious answer to all of our questions.

[Straw Man]

Anything people argue about..... I mean every time someone questions the authenticity of the Bible it's always about the same stupid things, any inconsistency or something science can't explain (or can for that matter) in the Bible is always on debate.  And why?  Why does it matter one way or the other why do people waste their time attempting to defend these things they themselves don't have the answers to.  All of these variables that can't be explained now also couldn't be explained then, why?, because humans don't have all the answers (Surprise Surprise).  Then you may ask, why would the human authors write about what they didn't have conclusive evidence for?  To that I say like any inquisitive mind they simply filled in the blanks to the best of their knowledge, an educated guess if you will.  We always look for the most obvious answer to all of our questions.

so anything that can be argued about is an error or at least a potential error?

If "variables" (whatever those may be) couldn't be explained back then why should we put any credence in a book written back then by a bunch of men.  Surely we, as a species have a much better understanding of the natural world today then we did back then.  The other "variable" is very delicate matters of life and death and again, why should something written by men a few thousand years ago be given any credence, especially when they were so prone to error?

[laurion]

so anything that can be argued about is an error or at least a potential error?

If "variables" (whatever those may be) couldn't be explained back then why should we put any credence in a book written back then by a bunch of men.  Surely we, as a species have a much better understanding of the natural world today then we did back then.  The other "variable" is very delicate matters of life and death and again, why should something written by men a few thousand years ago be given any credence, especially when they were so prone to error?

That's what I've been saying.  The only thing I will say is that if someone reads the Bible looking for some foundation of faith then I'm sure they'll find it.  Plus if you believe in God as a Christian it's certainly not gonna lead you in the wrong way!  However I have always found it more important to form one's own personal relationship with God, instead of blindly following some old writings of an archaic, poetic, war-prone and highly symbolic society.

[big L dawg]

That's what I've been saying.  The only thing I will say is that if someone reads the Bible looking for some foundation of faith then I'm sure they'll find it.  Plus if you believe in God as a Christian it's certainly not gonna lead you in the wrong way!  However I have always found it more important to form one's own personal relationship with God, instead of blindly following some old writings of an archaic, poetic, war-prone and highly symbolic society.

no evil has been done so fully and passionately than that perpatrated under religious convictions.and faith is the great cop-out the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence.