doubtingthomas

I agree that alot of the supposed contradictions in the bible are bogus and that they are the work of people who selectively quote scripture out of context. However, I think that there are a number of incosistencies or errors in the Bible that are quite hard to get around.

Resistor

I think what Sauron is saying is the Bible does not say that the reason these foods were banned was because they were unsanitary. What makes you think that is the reason?

Vorkosigan

See any logical problems here?

PinkZinc

Here we have the savior of mankind, poker of Pharisees, rouser of Romans, stirrer of Sadducees, Messiah of er, Jews, and there`s not a single description of his appearance. Skip the drunkard rumour, and the extraneous story of being a cripple, and we have naught. Now, you could understand the residents of Jerusalem and surrounds knowing what he looked like, but don`t you think when Paul took the Good News abroad, the first question from locals might have been 'What did He look like?' Even if Paul was a tad hazy from the vision, meeting up with the Jerusalem boys could have filled the blank.

Steven Carr

Gosh, there were 8 people left in the world, and God told Noah he could eat all the things that were likely to kill them off.....

Smart thinking, Yahweh!

Steven Carr

As far as I am aware, Paul was writing in Greek, to Greek speakers.

Probably an Aramaic speaker would not see here what modern fundamentalists can see, as he would not be able to read Greek.

Steven Carr

Wasn't Matthew supposedly written in Aramaic, not Greek? Who cares what the translator into Greek got wrong?

What does the Peshitta say?

Of course, the word means choked or hung, as any Bible lexicon will tell you.

It can be used mataphorically, just as we can say that somebody choked. But that would be a bizarre reading in context.

ichabod crane

At the time he wrote I Corinthians, I am convinced he was certain it would be within the lifetime of himself or those he was writing to. I don't think you can get around 15:51. However, there is a significant shift in his eschatology between I Corinthians and II Corinthians, and I think by the time he wrote the latter epistle(s) he may no longer have believed in a near return of Christ.

No, it can't. Paul is clearly distinguishing those who are dead from those who are alive. There is not the slightest suggestion that Paul thinks that those who are alive must die first; you're just reading that into the passage. The "fundamentalist" argument is a straw man; the vast majority of New Testament scholars, none of them fundamentalists, would agree with what I am saying. Fundamentalists believe in a theory called dispensationalism, with a secret rature followed by 7-year tribulation, etc. etc. etc. But no-one here is arguing for that. There is just a clear statement that when Jesus returns, the dead will be raised and the living will be transformed. This is also obvious in I Corinthians 15 to anybody who reads it in context without trying to impose theological theories on the text. The difference in I Corinthians 15 is that Paul has started to spiritualize the resurrection, a trend absent in I Thessalonians and which comes to culmination in II Corinthians. If anyone here is being a fundamentalist, it is you, judge! You are insisting that the text is error-free and that Paul must be consistent with himself across time, rather than developing his thought.

If anyone is interested in following this up, I'd recommend standard commentaries on the various passages. Or just the read the passages carefully in context yourself, in a reasonably literal translation (e.g. NRSV, NASB).

Only if you assume that Paul did not change or develop his thought between I Thessalonians and I Corinthians! In any case, as has been pointed out, this statement is consistent with a near return of Christ.

While I tend to agree with your overall point (that the New Testament is not consistent with the Old Testament), this argument would have to be worked out in a lot more detail, because orthodox Christians say that the New Covenant set aside the Old Covenant law. Of course there are a whole raft of positions they advocate on the relationship between the Covenants and the continuing role, if any, for the Mosaic Law (see "Five Views on Law and Gospel", Bahnsen et al.). So the point is I don't think many Christians will find this argument convincing unless you can flesh it out (excuse the pun) in a lot more detail.

Asha'man

It never ceases to amaze me how apologetics destroy the value of the bible just as thoroughly as the original contradiction.

What you are arguing, Magus, is that the plain language of the bible doesn’t mean what it appears to mean, despite the fact that the language is perfectly clear.

Luke’s language is perfectly clear, he says that Joseph’s father was Heli. Matthew’s language is also perfectly clear, he says that Joseph’s father was Jacob.

Both genealogies list a lineage exclusively through men, and both trace back to David. It’s blindingly obvious that both were trying to address the idea that Jesus had to be Davidic in order to be the Messiah, and Kingship has always flowed from father to son.

What you are suggesting is that Luke didn’t really mean Joseph when he wrote his text, he meant Mary.

(btw, all genealogies in that day and age went only through the line of the father, the ancients had no idea about the human egg, only the ‘seed’ of the man, so only the lineage of the father had any meaning at all. The Jewish tradition of recognizing the lineage of the mother came several centuries later, after the Diaspora, and was created to preserve the coherence of their culture.)

Let’s take that a little further. When we hear that Jesus was Crucified, what the author meant was that Jesus watched a crucifixion. Because, when the author said that it was Jesus on the cross, what he meant was that it was Barabbas.

Do you see where this is going?

Jesus didn’t walk on water, that’s only what the text says. What the author meant was that Jesus walked on wet rocks on the side of the water.

The disciples of Jesus didn’t see Jesus walking around after he died, the author meant that they saw a vision of Jesus, draw from their memory.

By trying to insert a meaning that is clearly unwarranted and against the clear meaning and intent of the text, you have destroyed any message the book might have contained.

So I have a choice. I can accept that there is a cut and dried contradiction about the lineage of Jesus’ father, or I can accept that the meanings behind the text are so completely obscured that the book is meaningless. I’d be better served by inventing my own religion from scratch and hoping that I come up with something forgivable.

Asha'man

So, if God was so concerned with our health, why didn't he make a law about washing our hands with soap before eating?

Seems like an awfully big oversight to me. Poor God, couldn't even figure out how most disease is spread.