Originally Posted by schriverja

A bit of a reboot. Let's actually discuss the topic at hand, namely, whether or not there are doctrinal or logical inconsistencies regarding specific topics in the Bible.

Here's a couple of topics and my takes.
Is the Jewish Law to be followed by Christians?
1. Apparently, Galatians is a polemic work by Paul to oppose the teaching of Peter. Assuming that the actual followers of Jesus still believed that the Jewish customs should be followed (Matthew 5:17-20, 19 indicates this as well as Luke 16:17), Paul is apparently seeking to overthrow this Jewish interpretation throughout his letter to the Galatians, and he is directly confronting teachings by Peter (Galatians 1:6-9, verse 8 is apparently referring to Peter), Galatians 1:16-19 is Paul distancing himself from the 'Twelve', Galatians 2:11-13 confirms that Peter and James had been teaching that the Jewish customs are still to be followed, and 2:15-16 makes Paul's views clear. Paul, however contradicts himself (in my view) by invoking Deut 27:26 in Galatians 3:10).
2. Interestingly enough, the author of Acts seeks to minimize the tension between Paul and Peter. Acts 10:9-48 shows that Peter was given the vision to preach even to the Gentiles, which seems to conflict with the fact that Paul claims that the Gentile ministry was only accepted after Paul's success (Galatians 2:7-9). Acts shows that there was tension among the early Jewish followers in accepting the Gentiles into the church (Acts 11:1-18), which is difficult to explain if Peter, who was likely the first Pope-type figure, instigated this policy. Acts further tries to imply that Peter wasn't preaching that the Jewish customs should be followed, in the account of the Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-21) and that Peter would preach to the Gentiles as well as Jews. If there was no tension between Paul and Peter on this point, why was Paul so venomous in Galatians (2:9, Paul slaps at Peter, James, and John, sarcastically saying 'those reputed to be pillars'). Again Paul says that Peter, James and John would preach to the Jews, and Paul to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:9)). Paul again says that believers are no longer subject to the law at all, but to faith alone (Gal. 3:25). Interestingly enough, according to Acts 21:21-26 Paul apparently acknowledges in deed that he needs to be ritually pure (according to the Jewish customs). Acts 21:24 specifically states the reason for Paul undergoing the ritual is to reject the 'reports' that he is rejecting the law, even though he clearly is according to his own letter to Galatians. Ironically, this purification ritual at the temple is where Paul gets arrested (Acts 21:27-36).
3. NT Passages that support an abolishment of the Old Covenant (Hebrews 10:15-18; Gal 3:23-25; 2 Cor 3:7-17; Eph 2:15; Heb 8:13, Rom 7:6 etc). Interesting to note that all of these passages are Paul's, with the likely exception of Hebrews (which has an unknown author). No other author in the NT apparently holds this view.
4. OT Passages that support that the Old Covenant was permanent ( Exo 31:16-17, Exo 12:14-17, Mal 3:6-7) and will never be replaced or added to (for example Deut 4:2, 13:1).

Biblical explanations for suffering*
1. Job apparently suffers so God can win a bet...
2. Moses apparently thinks suffering is a generational karma thing
3. Apparently Jewish thought, at least in the first century, was that a person's (or parent's) sin brought upon suffering (John 9)

Originally Posted by Jaybees

No astronomers at that time noticed this:

"Joshua 10:14 And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel."

It's safe to say it never happened. I'm not arguing about miracles, I'm just wondering why no one outside these few acres of land even noticed it.

Don't you agree that someone, someplace, somehow would have realiazed that the sun stood still that day?

If not, please explain.

Originally Posted by Jaybees

Even though you said that you "know" the bible is true?

Originally Posted by simon kole

Jesus explained that it occurred only when the descendants continued the sin of their fathers (Lk 11:48-51).

See http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.php?p=6835410 .
Does God have to have only one reason? Could not all of them be true?

*simplified and paraphrased from Bart Ehrman's God's Problem book... edit: either of these topics probably could do to have a thread of their own to unpack them...

Originally Posted by simon kole

That's a good question. But just because a specific statement is not included in the account, does not mean it is not inferred by it.

To say that Judas bought a field with his money is not entirely inappropriate, since those to whom he gave the money bought a field with it. I do not see this difference as a material contradiction, because I use a more practical dynamic understanding of the texts, as opposed to a theoretical static understanding of them.

In one account he "hanged" himself, in the other account he "fell headlong."

In a more practical understanding of what occurred, could it not be that he hanged himself, and when the body finally fell, either because someone took it down or because of decay, it was in a decomposed condition and so broke open in the middle?

The texts do give two different reasons for calling it the Field of Blood. One says it was because it was blood money to betray Jesus. The other says it was because his body broke open.

Could it be the chief priests called it the Field of Blood for the first reason, and "everybody in Jerusalem who heard about his body breaking open" called it that for the second reason?

I agree, the accounts are not forensically identical. But I don't require that kind of identity between accounts to arrive at a satisfactory understanding of them, particularly when the differences are not material to the rest of the Bible.

But when the differences are material to the rest of the Bible, I go over them with a fine-toothed comb, as I did the basic doctrinal inconsistency of the Bible, in post #35 on this thread.

Originally Posted by simon kole

I hear you loud and clear on that one. And so did Paul (Ro 9:17-21), as you already know.
This will be a part of my presentation on logical inconsistency.

Originally Posted by schriverja

[invoking my best simon tone]

*simplified and paraphrased from Bart Ehrman's God's Problem book... edit: either of these topics probably could do to have a thread of their own to unpack them...

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

I find Paul's answer to be very unsatisfactory on a number of levels. Although I don't expect that you will have much of anything new to add in your exposition, I do wait with baited breath on your presentation.

Sin is usually defined as anything a person does that is against the will of God, but which will is that? Calvinists claim that God has a prescriptive will, where God lays out all the things that he wants us to either do or not do. But we are told by Calvinists that God also has a secret will, where God decrees that people do things which violate God's prescriptive will. Assuming a completely sovereign God, we are not able to resist this second will of God, and a case can be made that God himself is the cause of our violating his other will.

I would like to see you explain this conundrum and possibly defend the notion that God is somehow not the author of sin.

Originally Posted by Failte

Just as I expected. "It's not REALLY a contradiction".

You simply interpret the two completely different stories to be the same, since you have to make it fit. Sorry, I'm not buying it. That is not what the bible says, which you have been preaching to us throughout the thread. What is says is pretty clear and it's quite different in those two books. I'm not misunderstanding what is written, I just refuse to elaborate and embroider the stories as written to make them the same.

Did he hang or did he fall-and-burst? Did he buy the field or did he throw away the money?

The two accounts are not reconcilable unless you add to them and start to "explain" how it might be plausible that both are true. The bible doesn't say that -- what it says is contradictory. In one he hanged himself, in another he fell-headlong and died. In one he bought land, in the other he threw away the money.

You have to add possible explanations and "could it be"s in order to make the two stories jibe, not just read the two accounts, which are actually quite clear.

If the stories were about two different characters -- for example, if I presented you with a statement that 'Bob threw the money he got for betraying his friend into the temple, and then went away and hung himself" and a bit later told you that "John bought a bunch of land with the money he got for betraying his friend, but then fell into the field and died, spewing out his intestines" would you even consider that the two stories described the same actions? Of course not. They describe completely different scenarios and imply different motivations and actions of the main character.

But, since the bible has to be contradiction-less, and the stories both tell how Judas died, they must be describing the same event! They have to, or your assertion that the bible has no internal contradictions is false.

Which were created first? Adam (and possibly eve) or the animals? What "could have beens" must you invoke to reconcile the two genesis accounts?

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

I find Paul's answer to be very unsatisfactory on a number of levels. Although I don't expect that you will have much of anything new to add in your exposition, I do wait with baited breath on your presentation.