|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
 Posted - 05/17/2005 : 10:53:50 [Permalink]
|
| The scary part of the Bible is the stuff they didnt mess up. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
 |
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2005 : 11:26:50 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
Just so you know, I'm not pasting the questions, I'm paraphrasing.
In whose name should we be baptized?
Mt.28:19
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
Acts 2:38
"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ."
Jesus is the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Jesus is Yahweh incarnate, and Yahweh has many manifestations, but He is one person.
Is everyone saved who calls Jesus Lord?
Acts 2:21, Rom.10:13
"Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved."
Mt.7:21
"Not every on that saith unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven."
The operative word is 'whosoever'. It means that salvation is available to anyone as can be seen from the verse preceeding the Romans quote:
Rom 10:12 "For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him."
It is understood that 'whosoever' shall be saved if they do thus and so.
Is the Lord omnipotent?
Gen.18:14
"Is any thing too hard for the LORD?"
Jer.32:17
"Ah Lord God! ... there is nothing too hard for thee."
Revelation 19:6
And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
Jg.1:19
"And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."
Mk.6:5
"And he could there do no mighty work."
Heb.6:18
"It was impossible for God to lie."
I don't think that 'omnipotence' should be defined as "capable of performing any event which our minds can possibly conceive." As for the Judges case, it was the tribe of Judah which could not drive out the inhabitants, probably because they didn't have the faith that the Lord would be with them. Jesus could not do mighty works in his home town because of the people's lack of faith. I think he imposes that rule upon himself that he'll do something for someone if they have the faith. I think He also imposes the rule upon himself that he won't lie.
Does Yahweh want killers killed?
Gen.9:6
"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." Gen.4:15
"And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him."
I believe that Yahweh's nature does not change, but he'll tell us to do different things at different times in order to produce certain results. Sometimes He tells people to do things the way they want to, such as when the Israelites demand a king even though Yahweh doesn't want to give them one.
Childish vs. Child-like
Mk.10:15
"Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein."
1 Cor.13:11
"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."
Eph.4:14
"That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine."
Some things about children are commendable, others aren't. We are told to receive the kingdom as a little child. We're also told not to be immature in the faith, like a little child.
Later,
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2005 : 11:43:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Dave:
Just so you know, I'm not pasting the questions, I'm paraphrasing.
What does that have to do with anything I wrote to you?quote:
Is everyone saved who calls Jesus Lord?
Acts 2:21, Rom.10:13
"Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved."
Mt.7:21
"Not every on that saith unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven."
The operative word is 'whosoever'. It means that salvation is available to anyone as can be seen from the verse preceeding the Romans quote:
Rom 10:12 "For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him."
It is understood that 'whosoever' shall be saved if they do thus and so.
One verse says that whosoever calls on Jesus will be saved, the other has Jesus Himself saying that that's not true. Your response doesn't address this contradiction at all.quote:
I don't think that 'omnipotence' should be defined as "capable of performing any event which our minds can possibly conceive."
How else would you define "all powerful?"quote:
As for the Judges case, it was the tribe of Judah which could not drive out the inhabitants, probably because they didn't have the faith that the Lord would be with them.
But the Bible clearly says that God was with them, and the He failed.quote:
Jesus could not do mighty works in his home town because of the people's lack of faith. I think he imposes that rule upon himself that he'll do something for someone if they have the faith. I think He also imposes the rule upon himself that he won't lie.
Offering these extra-Biblical apologies does not save the Bible from it's own contradictions. If Jesus is imposing rules on Himself which are found nowhere in the NT, that's obviously within His power (being omnipotent and all), but guessing about such unstated rules doesn't "fix" the problems in the Bible.quote:
I believe that Yahweh's nature does not change, but he'll tell us to do different things at different times in order to produce certain results. Sometimes He tells people to do things the way they want to, such as when the Israelites demand a king even though Yahweh doesn't want to give them one.
See above. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2005 : 13:51:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I don't think that 'omnipotence' should be defined as "capable of performing any event which our minds can possibly conceive."
Omnipotence means that there is nothing that you can't do, atleast once.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2005 : 15:27:17 [Permalink]
|
Cuneiformist:
To elaborate: if I met Jesus and knew that he existed and had power to take me to heaven belief in him would almost automatically follow. Of course everyone knows that Lenin did exist, but since he never claimed to be able to take me to heaven, I have no automatic desire to follow him.
beskeptigal:
A while ago someone I know was injured, he has since recovered. I was wondering how remarkable his recovery was. Here's what happened: this guy (48 years old, about 6 feet tall) was walking in the night and tripped over a stump, hitting his head on a metal pole. The precise area hit was on his right ear around the opening to the canal. He managed to call for help, go inside(with or without assistance, I walked in a few moments later), and sit down. He passed out or came close to passing out three or four times in the space of 15 minutes. At least one time I saw his eyes dilated and unresponsive to light(fixed and dilated?). Finally he stabalized, had headaches for a few days and since then has been fine. I was wondering how likely this recovery was.
Dave:
I didn't look at your post before I wrote my last post. I'd seen that you didn't want that other guy earlier in the thread to paste large amounts of material.
Now then, it seems that the verse in question (for the 'chief of captains' question) is 2 Sam 23:8 in the KJV. As for them being different people, their names are different. As for the lists being at different times:
The 2 Sam passage occurs at the end of David's life: 23:1 Now these be the last words of David. David the son of Jesse said, ...
The 1 Chronicles passage occurs just after David became king and conquered Jerusalem: 10:14 And enquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse.
As for Abraham's "only son", if you take an absolutely literal interpretation of Heb. 11:17 then there is a contradiction. I believe that Paul, who was raised as a strict Pharisee, knew good and well that Abraham had more than one son. Also, he may have been drawing a parallel between Abraham offering Isaac and Jesus offering himself.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's entirely possible that Abiathar had a son who he named after his dad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Such apologies do not have Biblical support.
Why do they need it? Should the Bible be required to say "by the way, this is the Abiathar whose dad was killed by Doeg, and he named his son Ahimilech"?
I'll get back to you on your other post.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2005 : 16:14:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Cuneiformist:
To elaborate: if I met Jesus and knew that he existed and had power to take me to heaven belief in him would almost automatically follow. Of course everyone knows that Lenin did exist, but since he never claimed to be able to take me to heaven, I have no automatic desire to follow him.
But h4c, you missed my point. It's not about following or not following. It's about saying that you've "met" and "talked with" dead people!
How anyone can claim to "know" Jesus and "love him" with all their heart is beyond me. Again, it makes as much sense as you claiming that you know and love, say, Alexander the Great, or Ben Franklin, or Cleopatra. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2005 : 16:44:35 [Permalink]
|
I still want to know which of the genesis accounts is the "right" one. They can't possibly both be right, as they clearly contradict one another.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2005 : 17:16:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Why do they [apologies] need it [Biblical support]?
When someone claims the bible contains no inconsistancies, one at least assumes they mean with what is written in its pages. Sure, you can imagine any number of long, fanciful strategems that "explain" those contradictions, but that is precisely why they are rejected. Scholars do not allow themselves to simply make up explanations not supported by any contextual evidence. If that were the game, there wouldn't be any need to read the bible in the first place. You could just declare the bible all true and entirely consistant at the outset without going through the trouble of actually opening it.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2005 : 19:21:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Dave:
I didn't look at your post before I wrote my last post. I'd seen that you didn't want that other guy earlier in the thread to paste large amounts of material. |
Ah, okay. Just to be clear, however, the Bible verses themselves are usually way out of copyright. Nobody can claim copyright to the KJV, for example. sweetmiracle, on the other hand, cut-and-pasted reams of a living person's writing about the Bible verses.Now then, it seems that the verse in question (for the 'chief of captains' question) is 2 Sam 23:8 in the KJV. As for them being different people, their names are different. As for the lists being at different times:
The 2 Sam passage occurs at the end of David's life: 23:1 Now these be the last words of David. David the son of Jesse said, ...
The 1 Chronicles passage occurs just after David became king and conquered Jerusalem: 10:14 And enquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse. |
I'm not buying it. I've created a side-by-side comparison table of most of the two chapters. It shows that 14 of the verses are substantially identical, and a further 12 share quite a bit of text.
The differences: Obviously, the first seven verses of 2 Sam 23 (David's last words) are radically different from the first ten verses of 1 Chr 11 (David's rise and takeover of Jerusalem). Then there are the two verses in question (2 Sam 23:8 and 1 Chr 11:11). Then 2 Sam 23:10 appears to add more description about Eleazar, lacking any counterpart in 1 Chr 11. And there are four sets of verses way down in the list of captains which are completely mismatched. Finally, 1 Chronicles 11, verses 42-47 have no counterpart in 2 Samuel 23.
Overall, though, 26 of the 39 verses of 2 Samuel 23 are repeated (in whole or part) in 1 Chronicles 11. That's 66% of 2 Samuel 23, or 55% of 1 Chronicles 11.
The main question to ask is this: did David smite the Philistines at Bethlehem before or after being crowned King of Israel? After all, that story is told in both chapters, after the verses in contention here.
Either way, you're suggesting that David had a lot of captains who survived from his coronation until his death.| As for Abraham's "only son", if you take an absolutely literal interpretation of Heb. 11:17 then there is a contradiction. |
And if you don't take an absolutely literal interpretation of the Bible, then any contradictions, real or mistaken, simply shouldn't matter. They pose no threat to the faith of those who aren't biblio-idolators.| Such apologies do not have Biblical support. |
Why do they need it? Should the Bible be required to say "by the way, this is the Abiathar whose dad was killed by Doeg, and he named his son Ahimilech"? |
What H. said. If it's supposed to be literally true, then yes, the Bible should explain every single apparent inconsistency. If not, all of these posts of yours which "resolve" the contradictions shouldn't matter one little bit to you.
Non-literalists have a great luxury, Hippy. They can say things like,"The Bible contains passages which appear to contradict each other. But so what? Like many early histories, written by various authors, the different writers may have heard somewhat different tales. Big deal. It doesn't make one bit of difference to my faith that 2 Samuel 23 and 1 Chronicles 11 say different things (along with many other chapters and verses), the important parts of the Bible are the spiritual truths and moral values therein. I couldn't care less if Judas hung himself or burst apart in a field... or hung himself and then fell and burst apart (as some apologists would have it). The important part of Judas' story is his betrayal of Jesus, not how Judas died. That two chroniclers don't agree just doesn't make any sort of dent in my faith in Jesus as my personal Lord and Saviour." Literalists, on the other hand, have little faith and require the Bible to be literally true. They don't have faith in Jesus so much as they worship the book itself. If, after all, the Bible isn't the perfect Word of God, then maybe Jesus wasn't the literal Son of God, and any such simple doubt can crush a weak faith like I can crush a cockroach.
[Edited to fix a typo - Dave W.] |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2005 : 19:58:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
As for Abraham's "only son", if you take an absolutely literal interpretation of Heb. 11:17 then there is a contradiction. I believe that Paul, who was raised as a strict Pharisee, knew good and well that Abraham had more than one son. Also, he may have been drawing a parallel between Abraham offering Isaac and Jesus offering himself.
Actually, this isn't just a contradiction, it's an error. Paul is wrong. You excuse the passage by surmising that Paul made the error on purpose (to draw a parallel to Jesus). That may be true, but it doesn't make it "not an error." It just means he knowingly committed it.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2005 : 00:08:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
....
beskeptigal:
A while ago someone I know was injured, he has since recovered. I was wondering how remarkable his recovery was. Here's what happened: this guy (48 years old, about 6 feet tall) was walking in the night and tripped over a stump, hitting his head on a metal pole. The precise area hit was on his right ear around the opening to the canal. He managed to call for help, go inside(with or without assistance, I walked in a few moments later), and sit down. He passed out or came close to passing out three or four times in the space of 15 minutes. At least one time I saw his eyes dilated and unresponsive to light(fixed and dilated?). Finally he stabalized, had headaches for a few days and since then has been fine. I was wondering how likely this recovery was.
.....
Hippy
Certainly not a miraculous account if that's what you had in mind.
A moderate concussion can cause a person to be 'sleepy' and to drift in and out of consciousness. The fact one's pupils become fixed and dilated, if that is indeed what you saw because it doesn't sound consistent with the rest of the description, doesn't mean a person has sustained irreversible brain damage. It merely indicates brain swelling is significant and permanent damage is potentially impending. What causes fixed pupils is brain swelling that begins to pinch off the ocular nerve supply. Just as you can hold your breath for a while or survive without blood flow to the brain for a few minutes, severe pressure on the ocular nerves can occur for a short period of time without permanent damage. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2005 : 07:06:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Cuneiformist:
To elaborate: if I met Jesus and knew that he existed and had power to take me to heaven belief in him would almost automatically follow. Of course everyone knows that Lenin did exist, but since he never claimed to be able to take me to heaven, I have no automatic desire to follow him.
I gotta agree with Cune on this one. We are talking about meeting and having a two way conversation with a dead guy. The salvation part of it is unrelated to the basic premise of you know someone who claims to have physically met and had a prolonged conversation with a dead guy. People who cliam that they have carried on a conversation with a dead guy are usually charlatains (John Edwards, Sylvia Browne and his ilk), deranged, or speaking in metaphor. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2005 : 19:26:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
At least one time I saw his eyes dilated and unresponsive to light(fixed and dilated?).
Unless you actually are shining a nice bright penlight into somebody's eyes, it is difficult to gauge pupilary response. Who said his pupils were unresponsive to light? And, as beskeptigal said, brain swelling is the cause of this most times. If your friend was in an ER with a symptomatic head injury there is a good chance that he recieved one or more drugs designed to reduce intracranial pressure.
Also, you should note, that traumatic brain injuries have a significantly better prognosis than hypoxic brain injury. The cases you hear of people waking up after years in a coma? Traumatic brain injury, if brain injury was the cause of their coma to begin with.
end off topic response.... :)
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2005 : 10:29:04 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
The simple fact is that not all of the Bible is meant to be interpreted absolutely literal. Some of it is, but not all of it. A clear example can be seen in Proverbs 26:4-5: "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."
The author clearly doesn't mean for both verses to be taken absolutely literal. It seems most logical to me that he means what he says to be interpreted as saying that there is a proper time to do either thing.
Is everyone saved who calls Jesus Lord? The SAB lists three verses saying that whosoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. These are Joel 2:32, Acts 2:21, and Romans 10:13. I tried finding the original word for the Joel passage, but two sources I looked through listed it without an original word. In Acts 2:21 "whosoever" is translated from three words: "hos", "pas", and "an". In Romans 10:13 it's translated from only "hos" and "an". The word "an" has no certain English translation, and Thayer's Lexicon says that it indicates that "something can or could occur on certain conditions" as can be seen here: http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1116523013-6080.html
Does this satisfy you on this question? |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
| Edited by - hippy4christ on 05/19/2005 10:32:16 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2005 : 11:36:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
The simple fact is that not all of the Bible is meant to be interpreted absolutely literal. Some of it is, but not all of it. A clear example can be seen in Proverbs 26:4-5: "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."
The author clearly doesn't mean for both verses to be taken absolutely literal. It seems most logical to me that he means what he says to be interpreted as saying that there is a proper time to do either thing.
Sure. As I said, many people find spiritual and moral truths in the Bible without assuming that every word is the literal Word of God. Those people simply don't give a damn about any apparent contradictions, since they don't approach the Bible as God's Encyclopedia, but more like God's Big Parable. In fact, I doubt very much that many of them find the histories in the Old Testament interesting or illustrative of God's Divine Intent. These people would only join in a "Biblical contradictions" thread as a purely intellectual exercise, and not worry about defending every jot and tittle as if they mattered (as you appear to be doing).quote:
Is everyone saved who calls Jesus Lord? The SAB lists three verses saying that whosoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. These are Joel 2:32, Acts 2:21, and Romans 10:13. I tried finding the original word for the Joel passage, but two sources I looked through listed it without an original word. In Acts 2:21 "whosoever" is translated from three words: "hos", "pas", and "an". In Romans 10:13 it's translated from only "hos" and "an". The word "an" has no certain English translation, and Thayer's Lexicon says that it indicates that "something can or could occur on certain conditions" as can be seen here: http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1116523013-6080.html
Does this satisfy you on this question?
Not at all. The "certain condition" appears to be "calling on Jesus," so we're going around in circles. Where is the verse which tells us whom, out of all of those who call on Jesus, will be saved, and whom will not? And if calling on Jesus is not sufficient, perhaps not calling on Jesus doesn't mean that a person will automatically not be saved. If that's true, but we can't learn any specifics about what will ensure our being saved, then it's a toss-up no matter what we do. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
