Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
01503

Can anyone list some of the major contradictions in the Bible?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

How about this one?

"On the seventh day, God rested."

If God is omnipotent, then doing heavy work is just as easy as doing nothing, so for God there is no such thing as a rest!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Makes sense. Furhter Olive Oil has got to be a virgin. I mean, she couldn't possibly survive an intimate encoutner with any man.

Make that _extra virgin!

Maybe there's something to this Christianity business after all :lol:

Your mother did tell you to eat your spinach, didn't she?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought it was funny that god punished man to toil on the earth (i.e., be productive), and then demands a return on their work because it was a "blessing". In reality, any time god 'blessed' a king's reign with prosperity, it wasn't some divine act of god. It was a man toiling away on a field, a mine, or a workshop creating wealth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
God loves unconditionally, yet if you do not accept his love (a condition), he damns you to Hell... ridiculous

Also, that God "gave us the choice" in the Garden of Eden (as I've heard it argued), and when we didn't do what he wanted, he got into a hissy fit.

Which brings me to another point, about the Tree of Knowledge. In Genesis 1:30, God says to man "I give every green plant for food.", but then in Genesis 2:16-17 he says "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil".

C'mon God, get it together now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Furhter Olive Oil has got to be a virgin.

Would that make her Extra Virgin Olive Oil? ^_^

Edit: Dang, someone beat me to the punch. XP

Also, that God "gave us the choice" in the Garden of Eden (as I've heard it argued), and when we didn't do what he wanted, he got into a hissy fit.

Which brings me to another point, about the Tree of Knowledge. In Genesis 1:30, God says to man "I give every green plant for food.", but then in Genesis 2:16-17 he says "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil".

C'mon God, get it together now.

Wait, if we didn't know about good and evil, then how were we supposed to know it was so bad to eat from that tree?

Edited by TuringAI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's one:

In Catholicism particularly, they preach that, "With God, there is no time. God knows your actions before you take them." So even though people have "free will", their future actions are already known and pre-determined by God since the beginning of the Universe.

So in essence, God knows that many people will reject him and sin, and he also knows that he will damn these people to hell. Therefore, God creates people with the intention of sending them straight to hell.

"But woe to that one by whom the Son of Man is betrayed for it would have been better for him had he never been born".

-Jesus on Judas Iscariot, and proof of my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I always thought it was funny that god punished man to toil on the earth (i.e., be productive), and then demands a return on their work because it was a "blessing". In reality, any time god 'blessed' a king's reign with prosperity, it wasn't some divine act of god. It was a man toiling away on a field, a mine, or a workshop creating wealth.

Reminds me of a couple of things:

from my 1972 "[my real last name] Layman's guide: Religion"

"Divine Intervention": Floods, earthquakes and other disasters meant to demonstrate God's love and mercy

A joke I heard in Arkansas in 1981:

A man bought a very rundown farm and set to work. After 5 years of hard toil he had a prosperous business.

The local minister said to him "I see God has blessed you quite well with this wonderful piece of land and fine house."

The man replied "Oh, I don't know, Reverend, it was in pretty bad shape when He had it"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Need lots of major contradictions in the Bible. I know they're there. :P

What are the best ones? Best meaning "useful for arguing against the validity of the Bible with".

There are none.

None that will convince a Christian. Every time a Christian faces a contradiction between two verses, he escapes it by arbitrarily adding context to the verses. For example, one part of the bible claims that Judas died by hanging from a tree. Another part claims that he died when his guts fell out of him in a field. The Christian escapes this by arbitrarily asserting that the latter verse actually "clarifies" the former, i.e., that Judas' guts fell out of him after he was hung from a tree in a field. Then they usually add this bit of icing: "this even offers us insight into God's mind, as it shows that God was really, REALLY mad at Judas, so mad that he made doubly sure Judas was dead." This is a stupid way of resolving the contradiction, but it reduces the cognitive dissonance sufficiently that they will not be convinced by it.

Here is the pattern: Every time one verse says "A", and another says "not A," the Christian will assert that the verses are talking about different A's. Then they will add credibility to their new interpretation by showing that it somehow illuminates whole fields of meaning.

Another example. This was brought up earlier:

John 2:15 - You must not love the world or anything in the world

And later, on the very same page:

We should love each other

This wouldn't convince a Christian. Why? Simply add context to the term "world" in the first verse: "The verse only means the material world. It is a tenet of Christianity that the soul is not material. So we can love one another('s souls) without loving the (material) world or anything in it." Then add credibility like this: "John is simply reminding us that love is properly love for the person himself, not for any qualities he happens to possess in our ephemeral, meaningless material world. This explains why Christ was so careful to show love to all sorts of people who had no desirable qualities at all."

This is kind of fun. Let me try another.

In Genesis 1:30, God says to man "I give every green plant for food.", but then in Genesis 2:16-17 he says "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil".

Just arbitrarily add context to the term "green," taking it to mean completely green: "But God didn't forbid them a green plant, he forbade them a tree. The stump of a tree is brown!" I don't know how they would stretch that into a mind-blowing insight, though.

I have been arguing with these people for a very long time. It is not worth your time to look for contradictions in the Bible. Do not go on the attack. Defend the door of your mind, and let them do as they please in the outer darkness.

EDIT

Actually, I was reading over the thread, and Odden's quotes are good. I'm sticking by what I said earlier, though, because the Christian will pull things from the surrounding environment: the rest of the chapter, and the rest of the book. Failing that, they will pull things from their (invariably extensive) knowledge of Hebrew culture and language.

Look, this really is not worth your time. There are atheists who have spent years and years of their lives reading the Bible, Hebrew history, Greek history, learning Greek and Latin and Aramaic, and generally learning lots of things that can be put to NO productive use, just to be able to pin Christians down on Biblical contradictions. Every single Bible verse is tied up in a vast galaxy of interconnected information, and you have to know a lot of it to be able to prove anything. Again: YOU do not have the burden of proof here. THEY do. If you act as if you have the burden of proof, you will be sucked into an inescapable vortex of antiquated knowledge.

Edited by ctrl y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If god is all powerful, he can make an immovable object. If god is all powerful, he can move any object. <_<

isn't this just the ontological argument for God in reverse?

God loves unconditionally, yet if you do not accept his love (a condition), he damns you to Hell... ridiculous

the Christian concept of Hell is actually a Greek import, it is not found in the Bible. It is a contradiction within mainstream Christianity, yes, but it is not actually in the Bible.

Every time a Christian faces a contradiction between two verses, he escapes it by arbitrarily adding context to the verses.

...

Here is the pattern: Every time one verse says "A", and another says "not A," the Christian will assert that the verses are talking about different A's. Then they will add credibility to their new interpretation by showing that it somehow illuminates whole fields of meaning.

perhaps some Christians do attempt to ignore contradictions in this manner, but you appear to be saying that it is wrong in principle to consider the context of a statement?

simple statements, taken out of context, can appear contradictory but when you understand where/when/why it was said, you realise they are consistent (or at least not relevant)

Ayn Rand made a lot of collectivist statements in her books which are attributable to her. One could quote Ellsworth Toohey or James Taggart and point out, quite legitimately, that the statement was from the pen of Ayn Rand. Of course, those statements were made in a context of her demonstrating the illogic of collectivism, not support for it. understanding the context is vital, you can not presume someone is wrong on this basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Christian escapes this by arbitrarily asserting that the latter verse actually "clarifies" the former, i.e., that Judas' guts fell out of him after he was hung from a tree in a field. Then they usually add this bit of icing: "this even offers us insight into God's mind, as it shows that God was really, REALLY mad at Judas, so mad that he made doubly sure Judas was dead."

Why would anyone want to worship a god that is so awful? That's what I don't get. :) I got really, REALLY mad at my brother once, but I didn't torture him to death.

Edited by K-Mac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the Christian concept of Hell is actually a Greek import, it is not found in the Bible. It is a contradiction within mainstream Christianity, yes, but it is not actually in the Bible.

Matthew 13:42 They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 25:41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

Luke 16:23-24 In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'

Revelation 20:10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Mark 9:48 In hell worms that eat the body never die, and the fire is never put out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mark 9:48 In hell worms that eat the body never die, and the fire is never put out.

these are mistranslated, their original meaning was not "hell" as we understand it today - most Christians are unaware of this, sadly.

e.g. you mention Mark 9:48, well the word translated as "hell" in the previous verses (9:43, 9:45, 9:47) is "gehanna" which refers to the valley near Jerusalem which was previously a pagan site and turned into a rubbish dump which was permanently alight. the meaning of the passage, was that to be led astray from Jesus was to be prevented from having a place in the next world. burial is vital for Jews, cremation is NOT an option if you want to have a place in the next world, (after bodily resurrection, not heaven) when there were terrorist attacks in Israel, there were special teams who collect all bodily matter for burial. it is a symbolic cremation, i.e. reject Jesus = no heaven for you. it does not refer to a literal place.

other passages used the greek word hades, which was also the word used for the translation of the Old Testament Hebrew word 'sheol' - indicating that this has the same meaning. 'sheol' in the OT refers to a pit, an abyss, the grave, silence. not a place of fire and torment.

the meaning is not immediately apparent. we need to remember that the Bible was not written in English and the events occured within the context of 1st century Judaism (which were then subsequently interpretted by 2nd, 3rd and 4th century Greeks/Romans)

Edited by rebelconservative

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you serious?

not a place of fire and torment.

Matthew 13:42 They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 25:41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

Luke 16:23-24 In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'

Revelation 20:10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Mark 9:48 In hell worms that eat the body never die, and the fire is never put out.

So are you saying it doesn't say these things? Or that fire isn't fire and torment isn't torment?

it does not refer to a literal place.

Why would he be looking in the distance to Abraham asking him to send Lazarus over to where he is, where he was "thrown into" specifically, a place that was prepared for the devil and his angels, a place where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth, if it is a place that is somehow not a literal place?

Edited by 2046

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you serious?

...

So are you saying it doesn't say these things? Or that fire isn't fire and torment isn't torment?

I'm saying that it does not refer to that in the original. you ignored my point regarding mistranslations and errors of interpretation in language. don't forget that you are talking about a translation probably from aramaic to hebrew to greek to latin to olde english to modern english

a quick example... if a US army officer told a cadet in training to get to his station, it is possible that this word would be mistranslated into german as bahnhof (as in train station) if the translator (incorrectly) understood that to be the meaning of the original sentence - that the cadet was going to miss his train so he better hurry. if this was then translated into another language and another culture... etc you get the picture.

Why would he be looking in the distance to Abraham asking him to send Lazarus over to where he is, where he was "thrown into" specifically, a place that was prepared for the devil and his angels, a place where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth, if it is a place that is somehow not a literal place?

why do you assume that one has to take a literal view of the Bible? Jesus often taught in parables, using symbols etc

the term translated as 'hell' there is the greek, 'hades' the term used throughout the old testament to translate the hebrew 'sheol' - a pit, dark place, the grave etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm saying that it does not refer to that in the original. you ignored my point regarding mistranslations and errors of interpretation in language. don't forget that you are talking about a translation probably from aramaic to hebrew to greek to latin to olde english to modern english

Sounds like no one has any idea what any of it says, then. This is exactly what the poster above meant by adding arbitrary context to defend your position ... which, by the way, becomes a non-position since apparently none of it means anything or says what it should say.

Plus if there's no hell, then who gives a flying f*ck about any of it? Stop wasting your time!

why do you assume that one has to take a literal view of the Bible? Jesus often taught in parables, using symbols etc

So in which cases do you take a "literal" view of what the Bible says? When it says or implies things like "God exists"? Or things like "don't lie or else"? Or things like "gays are evil"? Or that humanity is hopelessly flawed and we can't hope for happiness without first dying? When it says something you like, but not when it says something you don't like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There you go ruining a perfectly christian discussion by calling for consistency bluey... sheesh. Don't you know only a true believer is allowed to determine what is meant to be followed and what is parable and what is a mistranslation and all of these things are interchangeable depending on the subject and the point the true believer wants to make to the unbeliever.

* No real logic was used or harmed in the previous post. Any similarity to posters living or dead is purely coincidental.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm saying that it does not refer to that in the original. you ignored my point regarding mistranslations and errors of interpretation in language.

How did I ignore your "point" about mistranslations? I specifically asked:

So are you saying it doesn't say these things? Or that fire isn't fire and torment isn't torment?

If I wanted to ignore your "point" I would've used your tactic:

You have offered a total of 2 samples of these supposed "mistranslations" [Hades and Sheol used for "hell"] neither of which address absolutely anything I said. Is fire mistranslated? Is torment mistranslated? Is is mistranslated? What are the original words then? What are your translations on these original words? The books of the New Testament were supposedly written in Greek. What is the Greek word used? Is it not for fire? Is it not for torment? Is it not describing a literal place? What are the real translations then? Does he not say come here and give me water because "I am in agony in this fire?" What does he really say then? What's the original Greek? What's your translation? Make with the "real" version already. I think that would be useful to us, no?

why do you assume that one has to take a literal view of the Bible?

There I go assuming words actually mean things.

Zip and Bluey pretty much said everything that needs to be said about that.

I find it laughable that some Christians (and Muslims) that say some parts of the Bible are literally true, but much else is to be interpreted "figuratively" as allegory. How do you know which is which? What distinguishing criteria are used? How can you be certain "God" is a literal and not a figurative concept then? What basis do you use to cherry pick the things you want to believe in and the things you don't want to believe in? What prevents you from accepting some while faithfully following others? Does God tell you?

Edited by 2046

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btw, I'm not a Christian, so I don't take the bible to be anything other than ancient man's attempts to understand the universe.

Sounds like no one has any idea what any of it says, then. This is exactly what the poster above meant by adding arbitrary context to defend your position ... which, by the way, becomes a non-position since apparently none of it means anything or says what it should say.

adding context to cherry-picked statements is often necessary to understand something. the fact that the context doesn't fit your preconceived notions does not make it arbitrary. the fact that some people may use this as a strategy to hide from reality has no bearing on the importance of context.

and the fact that people disagree on the interpretation of something does not remove all meaning (only one (or none) is correct of course). the fact that we can't be certain of something doesn't mean we should discard it all together - if we did there would be no academic study of history.

you seem irrationally averse to doubt, why is that?

So in which cases do you take a "literal" view of what the Bible says? When it says or implies things like "God exists"? Or things like "don't lie or else"? Or things like "gays are evil"? Or that humanity is hopelessly flawed and we can't hope for happiness without first dying? When it says something you like, but not when it says something you don't like?

I don't take a literal view of the Bible in any case.

maybe they pray or are filled with the Holy Ghost Spirit or something?

btw, the Bible doesn't says gays are evil either (warning: the following sentence is about to discuss a biblical passage and there may be some context, please remove small children and proceed at your own risk), it does say that buggery is an 'abomination' (thus placing it on the moral level of eating shellfish in OT times - though this prohibition was dropped at the Council of Jerusalem during the early periods of the Christian Church). the early Christian Church agreed which Jewish customs to follow and which to reject (lots of politics involved) and it was decided that ritual aspects were not applicable to gentile followers but certain moral aspects (mostly 10 Commandments type stuff) must be followed

How did I ignore your "point" about mistranslations? I specifically asked:

So are you saying it doesn't say these things? Or that fire isn't fire and torment isn't torment?

If I wanted to ignore your "point" I would've used your tactic:

You have offered a total of 2 samples of these supposed "mistranslations" [Hades and Sheol used for "hell"] neither of which address absolutely anything I said. Is fire mistranslated? Is torment mistranslated? Is is mistranslated? What are the original words then? What are your translations on these original words? The books of the New Testament were supposedly written in Greek. What is the Greek word used? Is it not for fire? Is it not for torment? Is it not describing a literal place? What are the real translations then? Does he not say come here and give me water because "I am in agony in this fire?" What does he really say then? What's the original Greek? What's your translation? Make with the "real" version already. I think that would be useful to us, no?

I am sorry that I don't have the time to research the Greek terms for each and every one of the obscure Biblical passages you provided, I thought two would suffice as examples.

and I did say that it was symbolism. the fire refers to a symbolic eternal destruction - as I mentioned, Jews have to preserve the body to be resurrected (no afterlife / heaven if you are cremated)

was Jesus talking about a literal samaritan? was their really a prodigal son? not everything is literal

if by "real version" you mean the original intent of the passage, I would imagine that, like much history, the "real" version is lost to us now and we are left with various interpretations on the available evidence.

remember, the is no Hell in Judaism - it is a Greek concept. it is highly doubtful whether the historical Jesus would ever have made mention of a literal place akin to hades without precedent.

I find it laughable that some Christians (and Muslims) that say some parts of the Bible are literally true, but much else is to be interpreted "figuratively" as allegory. How do you know which is which? What distinguishing criteria are used? How can you be certain "God" is a literal and not a figurative concept then? What basis do you use to cherry pick the things you want to believe in and the things you don't want to believe in? What prevents you from accepting some while faithfully following others? Does God tell you?

God doesn't tell me anything... when I hear the voices I just up my meds... :P

you appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that I'm Christian?

they are good questions - I gather that they use different schools of theology to help them determine all of these things. however, as I am not a theologian and would not care to comment on the criteria that they use.

Edited by rebelconservative

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone here ever read the koran? It's very consistent. No contradictions there, by gum!

The difference being the Bible was a collection of writings from many disparate sources, a clumsy attempt by Jews to capture the history of the world and Jewry from the beginning times mythology to the prophecies of the end times. The New testament is a clumsy attempt by Romans to document the life of Christ using different accounts, as well as letters written by some of Christ's followers after his death. If they had been trying to avoid contradictions, they would've used one source, one story and that'd be the end of it. They didn't. They chose four different sources, each of them telling the story from a different perspective, and thus necessarily contradictory.

The Koran, on the other hand was written by one man, not to capture the history of anything, but to prescribe the rules by which all men would (eventually) live. If you haven't already, go into your local Borders or B&N and pick up a copy of the Koran, turn to a random page and read one paragraph. I'll bet you better than even odds you will find a reference to the punishment awaiting the infidel, if not a call to punish the infidel. It is all very consistent and all very straightforward: Either you believe that muhammed is the prophet of allah, and that his word is to be obeyed, or you will be killed, either by a muslim or by allah himself. Muslim is the arabic word commonly translated to "one who submits." Funny, I thought we had an English word capturing this concept, but it seems "slave" is not a politically correct translation.

Not to be a muslim-basher here, but honestly, I fail to find the reason in attacking Christianity, specifically, on these pages, while letting the other religions get lumped into the "almost/just as bad" category. I've read the bible and I find many of Christ's messages to be useful, rational, and, dare I say it, consistent with Objectivism (though certainly not all, or even most).

The message (from the horse's mouth, mind you, not fourth/fifth hand) from muhammed, on the other hand, leaves me with no alternative but to view islam as a vicious, fascist ideology masquerading as a religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
btw, I'm not a Christian, so I don't take the bible to be anything other than ancient man's attempts to understand the universe.

Sure, fine. That's exactly what it is. The thing is, now we have other, better, more reliable ways to explain the universe - and yet people keep wasting my time and our money with this bullshit (I'll assume you can think of some examples of this). You aren't going to earn my respect by trying to defend the bible's legitimacy, even if you think you're just taking some sort of moderate position.

adding context to cherry-picked statements is often necessary to understand something. the fact that the context doesn't fit your preconceived notions does not make it arbitrary. the fact that some people may use this as a strategy to hide from reality has no bearing on the importance of context.

The facts that a) context needs to be added from outside the text in order to "understand" the statement and b ) that adding said context makes individual words mean something other than what they are legitimately defined to mean makes the context-adding arbitrary. You can't compare this to, say, words written by Rand as said by Toohey, because the context in any of those cases can be found directly, concretely and without any variety of interpretation through reading the surrounding text. That is non-arbitrary context. To equivocate the two absolutely undermines the importance of context.

and the fact that people disagree on the interpretation of something does not remove all meaning (only one (or none) is correct of course). the fact that we can't be certain of something doesn't mean we should discard it all together - if we did there would be no academic study of history.

If there is a non-contradictory meaning to a passage, then only one can be correct. If there can be no possible consensus as to which meaning is the correct one and if two apparently legitimate meanings are contradictory, then that is certainly the same as having no meaning. If we can't possibly be certain of the meaning of a statement then we absolutely should discard it all together - what else could we possibly do with it? Fight wars over who's right? And why would you think that the academic study of history is to find the one correct "meaning" of past events, rather than simply to learn from the facts of past human experience and make sure the future is better?

you seem irrationally averse to doubt, why is that?

I have not once used the word "doubt" in any post I've made in this thread. Other than that last sentence. I, personally, as a matter of policy, don't doubt - I find out.

I don't take a literal view of the Bible in any case.

Then why the hell are you arguing??? "You're wrong to think they're wrong. Of course I also think they're wrong, so don't get mad at me. I'm just saying ..." Pussy.

btw, the Bible doesn't says gays are evil either ...

Yes, it does. See Romans 1:26-28 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - it's not only in the Old Testament, it's not just a carry-over from Judaism.

and I did say that it was symbolism. the fire refers to a symbolic eternal destruction - as I mentioned, Jews have to preserve the body to be resurrected (no afterlife / heaven if you are cremated)

Symbolically resurrected? Did they "symbolically" or "literally" preserve their bodies? Are you saying that fire is a symbol of a literal, room-temperature eternal destruction? Or just a symbol of a mild pre-death depression? Or that it's a symbol of nothing at all??

Look, you've already stated that you're half-assedly defending a position that isn't even yours, and I know that on a level where I'm interacting with you (rebelconservative) as an individual, I'm wasting my time. But seriously, I've heard this bullshit on a daily basis from people who actually give a damn for my entire life, and I've had it with nodding politely. You're wrong, you're spewing garbage, you're defending an ideology that is factually, provably totally frigging incorrect, that is ruining lives, wasting billions, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RNfL6IVWCE, impeding progress* and is just plain obnoxious.

Sure, go ahead and "think" whatever muddled nonsense you want. I'll go ahead and think you're an idiot.

* Just a few quick links - not the best, just the first to pop up in Google.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure, fine. That's exactly what it is. The thing is, now we have other, better, more reliable ways to explain the universe - and yet people keep wasting my time and our money with this bullshit (I'll assume you can think of some examples of this). You aren't going to earn my respect by trying to defend the bible's legitimacy, even if you think you're just taking some sort of moderate position.

who said I wanted your respect?

and where did I defend the legitimacy of the Bible...? I made a simple point regarding the need for context generally, and that some language used in the Bible being mistranslated. I was rather surprised by the response tbh.

The facts that a) context needs to be added from outside the text in order to "understand" the statement

it is not arbitrary to say that culture affects the original intent and our understanding.

a liberal, a conservative and an Objectivist may all say "I believe in free speech" but it would be incorrect to assume that the meaning of their statement is the same. the Objectivist believes in free speech, but the liberal and conservative will both have their own qualifications and limitations to that seemingly unequivocal statement. these can only be deduced from looking at context outside the statement.

and b ) that adding said context makes individual words mean something other than what they are legitimately defined to mean makes the context-adding arbitrary. You can't compare this to, say, words written by Rand as said by Toohey, because the context in any of those cases can be found directly, concretely and without any variety of interpretation through reading the surrounding text. That is non-arbitrary context. To equivocate the two absolutely undermines the importance of context.

Ayn Rand wrote The Virtue of Selfishness, then spent most of the introduction adding context to that statement, explaining what she meant by 'selfishness' because few people understand the word to mean what she (and the dictionary) knew it means. most people misunderstand Ayn Rand because they don't bother to find out the context behind the soundbites they may see on liberal websites.

If there is a non-contradictory meaning to a passage, then only one can be correct. If there can be no possible consensus as to which meaning is the correct one and if two apparently legitimate meanings are contradictory, then that is certainly the same as having no meaning. If we can't possibly be certain of the meaning of a statement then we absolutely should discard it all together - what else could we possibly do with it? Fight wars over who's right?

your mother never taught you to agree to disagree?

And why would you think that the academic study of history is to find the one correct "meaning" of past events, rather than simply to learn from the facts of past human experience and make sure the future is better?

so what was Stonehenge used for?

Then why the hell are you arguing???

because I enjoy playing devils advocate

"You're wrong to think they're wrong. Of course I also think they're wrong, so don't get mad at me. I'm just saying ..."

did I ever say they were right and the bible held no contradictions and was handed down by God?

Pussy.

meow

Yes, it does. See Romans 1:26-28 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - it's not only in the Old Testament, it's not just a carry-over from Judaism.

I stand corrected :lol:

(though I have not had the time to check it in the original greek... :P)

Symbolically resurrected? Did they "symbolically" or "literally" preserve their bodies? Are you saying that fire is a symbol of a literal, room-temperature eternal destruction? Or just a symbol of a mild pre-death depression? Or that it's a symbol of nothing at all??

they literally preserved their bodies because they believed they needed to bury all parts to be resurrected.

the fire symbolised the destruction of their body and therefore, the idea that rejecting Jesus meant rejecting the afterlife, meaning no afterlife of any temperature, just nothingness.

You're wrong, you're spewing garbage, you're defending an ideology that is factually, provably totally frigging incorrect

I am curious, what did I say to lead you to conclude that I was defending their ideology?

I'll go ahead and think you're an idiot.

think? shouldn't you prove it as an Objective reality...? :P

* Just a few quick links - not the best, just the first to pop up in Google.

no problem :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The self-contradictions of the Bible from Freespace (Timothy Sandefur's blog):

"A cool poster. I remember my Greek professor in college telling me, rightly, that the only people who believe every word of the Bible are people who haven't read it."

Following the "cool poster" link, there are links to two printable versions of the poster (PDF): 22” x 33” or 33” x 44”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×