Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jack the Bodiless · 02-25-2005, 07:27 AM

In the thread Is Lack of Evidence a form of Evidence?, bfniii has argued that the Bible's claims should be taken at face value even where no independent evidence exists to confirm or refute the claim: because the Bible as a whole is known to be reliable. It contains no known errors: everything that can be checked pans out.

Responses to this rather startling claim are threatening to derail the thread, which was set up specifically to address claims without evidence. The falsehood of the Genesis creation and flood accounts has a spin-off thread in E/C, E/C split from "Is Lack of Evidence a form of Evidence?": I'm creating this thread to address other known Biblical errors, such as contradictions, historical inaccuracies not related to creationism, failed prophecies and so forth.

Some material from the parent thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

The Bible has withstood centuries of misinterpretation so it’s doubtful that this one will break the Bible...

...however, what i have said is that the bible has shown itself to be trustworthy...

...my point is at this point in history i do not know of any information that proves the bible is untrue. there are things that are difficult to believe and there are even some things that appear confusing on the surface. but none of that means it's untrue...

...my personal opinion is that until something unquestionably proves the bible wrong, there is no reason to doubt it...

...curious. the more rigorous standard employed by non-christians has yet to disprove the bible's claims...

...The bible is what it is. Any burden of proof lies on whatever person wishes to believe it or not. Otherwise, it can just be dismissed apathetically. Skeptics have no proof that the bible is untrue but claim the bible shouldn’t be believed or that it is mythological. Christians do have some evidence that corroborates biblical claims and can make a reasonable case that it is true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

But skeptics HAVE disproved numerous Biblical claims! You may prefer to believe otherwise, but here you seem to be arguing that skeptics haven't managed to disprove ANY Biblical claims according to their own standards. In other words: unless I've misunderstood you, you're arguing (erroneously) that the lack of confirmation of certain unverifiable Biblical claims is the only basis for our lack of belief in the Bible's 100% inerrancy!

Conversely, your own belief in inerrancy is the only basis for your belief that the unverifiable events in the Bible actually happened at all.

So, do you wish to continue discussing whether certain specific events happened at all, or do we really need to tackle the "inerrancy" issue next (maybe in a different thread)?

An exchange between myself and bfniii, relating to the SAB's False Prophecies page (which bfniii refused to study):

Quote:

Can you bring me one of the bodies of the dragons that now inhabit Babylon, or tell me which Egyptian cities speak Caananite? Or maybe you should chat to an inhabitant of a city which would "never again be inhabited", like Tyre?

Since Babylon doesn’t exist anymore, it would stand to reason that the first prophecy you cite was fulfilled.

...So dragons exist then? Did the soldiers in Iraq find one? Were there photographs?

BTW, Babylon still exists, and has remained inhabited since the prophecy was made.

The second prophecy has been, at least in part, fulfilled by the spread of Christianity there to Egypt.

Nope. The prophecy is quite specific: "In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the LORD of hosts; one shall be called, The city of destruction."
This never happened, and Caananite is now a dead language.

And the last:

“fulfilled as to the mainland Tyre, under Nebuchadnezzar. The insular Tyre recovered partly, after seventy years (Isaiah 23:17,18), but again suffered under Alexander, then under Antigonus, then under the Saracens at the beginning of the fourteenth century. Now its harbors are choked with sand, precluding all hope of future restoration, "not one entire house is left, and only a few fishermen take shelter in the vaults" [MAUNDRELL]. So accurately has God's word come to pass.�? Jamieson, fausset, brown commentary.

Tyre was supposed to be completely destroyed: so completely that "though thou be sought for, yet shalt thou never be found again". Erased so completely that nobody knows where it WAS.

And yet about 15,000 people live there, apparently. And the island WAS the main city: the part on the mainland was just a suburb. The main city of Tyre did not fall!

Furthermore, Ezekiel was completed AFTER the event, and therefore fails as a prediction:

Ezekiel 29:18 "Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon caused his army to serve a great service against Tyrus: every head was made bald, and every shoulder was peeled: yet had he no wages, nor his army, for Tyrus, for the service that he had served against it"

Jack the Bodiless · 02-25-2005, 09:15 AM

I'll add this one from Ezekiel:

Quote:

Ezekiel 37:24-25 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them. And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.

This is sometimes cited by Christians as a successful prophecy of the re-emergence of Israel in 1948 (indeed, that was how it was first presented to me).

But it plainly refers to the re-emergence of Israel from the Babylonian captivity. And it FAILED. Note the for ever comments. The Israelite monarchy is no more, the Romans invaded, and the Jews were scattered for two thousand years.

I'll also toss in blt-to-go's summary of the census incident:

Quote:

Originally Posted by blt to go

(To save bandwidth, the three accounts of this event are at 2 Samuel 24:1-25, 1 Chronicles 21:1-28 and 1 Chronicles 27:24. Please read at your leisure)

Having read such, I have a few questions. Most are multiple-choice, to make it easy. (“A�?= 2 Sam., “B�?= 1 Chron. 21 and “C�?=1 Chron. 27)

1. When did God get angry?
A. Before the census
B. Because of the census
C. Because of the census

2. Who incited David to take the Census?
A. God
B. Satan
C. Nobody.

3. What human mandated the census?
A. David
B. David
C. Joab.

4. Who protested against the census?
A. Joab and his captains.
B. Joab.
C. Nobody, Joab did the census.

5. What was wrong with taking a census?
A. Nothing, God mandated it in Numbers 26:2
B. Nothing, God required it for taxes in Exodus 30:12
C. Nothing, They just did one in the preceding 23 verses!

6. How long did it take to do the census?
A. Nine months, 20 days.
B. Not recorded
C. Didn’t complete the census

7. Who all was counted?
A. All tribes
B. All tribes except Levi and Benjamin
C. Didn’t complete the census.

8. What was the number of the census?
A. 1.3 Million
B. 1.57 Million (with LESS tribes counted!)
C. Number was deliberately not recorded.

9. What stopped the census?
A. Done counting
B. Done counting
C. Wrath of God, census not completed.

10. Who took the blame for doing the census?
A. David
B. David
C. Not recorded, but apparently Joab.

11. What is the name of the Jebusite where the angel stopped?
A. Araunah
B. Ornan
C. Umm…What Jebusite?

12. What did the Jebusite do when he saw the Angel of Death?
A. Doesn’t say the Jebusite saw the Angel.
B. Just kept working, just kept working…
C. Excuse me? Jebusite? I do not see a Jebusite?

13. What did David buy from the Jebusite?
A. The Threshing floor and the oxen.
B. “the place�?
C. Are you crazy? THERE IS NO JEBUSITE!

14. How much did David pay the Jebusite?
A. 50 shekels of silver
B. 600 shekels of gold
C. @#*&! There is no Jebusite!

And Now for the Essay portion of our quiz. In your apologetic, discuss the theological implications of God getting so angry He desires to kill 70,000 people, but His nature of Justice mandates someone has to sin first. Also discuss the punishment of David’s sin being 70,000 OTHER people have to die. Also discuss Satan’s limitation of “tempting�? others unless God allows it. Or (in the alternative) discuss the ramifications of Satan and God working together to allow God to kill 70,000 people for David’s sin.

Jon Promnitz · 02-25-2005, 09:37 AM

Both the Old and New Testaments contain hundreds of irreconcialable internal errors and contradictions. I'm busy at the moment, but perhaps later I'll post a few. For anyone that hasn't read "Is It God's Word?" by Joseph Wheless, I strongly recommend it. The Infidels library has an unfomatted copy, but the below site has an online and downloadable zip version with formatting and links to each chapter and topic.

http://members.cox.net/galatians/chapters.htm
http://members.cox.net/galatians/free.htm

IMHO, this is by far the most thourough exposition of internal inconsistencies in the Bible.

external solipsism · 03-02-2005, 01:00 PM

The only things in the bible which have been able to be verified to have any kind of authenticity, are generally such vague or theologically unimportant, that they couldn't possibly establish a reasonable grounds to extend any kind of rational faith to the accuracy of the rest of the bible. Sure, the description in Genesis for the location of Eden proves to be enough to point to an actually existing location on Earth, but that's a long step from simply assuming that the Bible is also accurate when it says that the first man on earth was made there by God out of clay.

Jack the Bodiless · 03-04-2005, 03:20 AM

On the parent thread to this one, bfniii has expressed doubt that discussion of a Biblical-errancy issue between an unbeliever and an apologist can be "won" by the unbeliever, to the satisfaction of BOTH participants.

We have an example of such a discussion in the II Library: and, appropriately enough, it concerns Ezekiel's failed Tyre prophecy.

Farrell Till: Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled

Matthew Hogan: Till's Errors Concerning Tyre

Farrell Till: Hogan's Errors Concerning Pronouns

Matthew Hogan: A Straw House Amid 10-Foot Waves

Farrell Till: The Romans, Greeks, and So Forth

From Matthew Hogan's capitulation:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew Hogan

I have been thinking carefully about the comments you made in response to my article, which dealt with the Tyre "prophecy" (TSR, September/October 1996). Farrell, I agree with you that the Tyre "prophecy" failed miserably.

bfniii · 03-08-2005, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

bfniii has argued that the Bible's claims should be taken at face value

please quote where you get this from. otherwise, it is wrong of you to misrepresent my position.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

even where no independent evidence

independent evidence?!? i have asked repeatedly what that would be. the response has been someone who similarly records the event without knowledge of the biblical author or someone who doesn’t share the same belief or biases. Here are the problems with that requirement:
1. if an author who supposedly doesn’t know the biblical author, corroborates a biblical claim, skeptics can claim Christian copyists appended the collusion because it would be out of character for such a person to do so. This is the skeptical position in regards to the TF. This is clearly a case of special pleading.
2. I have addressed specific claims that skeptics would expect a non-biblical author to corroborate a biblical claim and shown why such an expectation is not valid. Check the other thread and respond if you have a response.
3. how would a skeptic go about proving that one author was unaware of the work of another author?
4. how would a skeptic go about proving a non-biblical author is unaware of specific Christian claims? If the author didn’t write about them, what would that prove? I’m not referring to an author getting some details wrong. Christianity was new so there was bound to be some of that going on.
5. if a non-biblical author corroborates a biblical claim, then how is the account independent? How would a skeptic go about proving that the author’s morals were above reproach? It has been cited that Caesar shaded accounts to his favor. The same could be true of any such biblical collusion.
6. if a non-biblical author corroborates an event that can’t be archaeologically verified, how does that not constitute an appeal to numbers? We would be reduced to the word of some people over the silence of others.

The word “independent�? has been misused in the last thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

(which bfniii refused to study):

Please provide the quote where I refused to study it.

bfniii · 03-08-2005, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Nope. The prophecy is quite specific: "In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the LORD of hosts; one shall be called, The city of destruction."
This never happened, and Caananite is now a dead language.

i responded by asking you why you feel it is necessary to render "language of canaan" so literally. Most prophecies are figurative.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Tyre was supposed to be completely destroyed: so completely that "though thou be sought for, yet shalt thou never be found again". Erased so completely that nobody knows where it WAS.

i disagree with your interpretation. i find "tyre" to refer more to it's political establishment than a city proper. again, your literal/figurative confusion causes improper interpretation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Furthermore, Ezekiel was completed AFTER the event, and therefore fails as a prediction:

and when was ezekiel completed? when exactly did tyre fall for good?

RGD · 03-08-2005, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

i responded by asking you why you feel it is necessary to render "language of canaan" so literally. Most prophecies are figurative.

This position renders the actual use and identification of any prophecy useless for the purposes of demonstrating whether it or the Bible is true - since you can simply find a figurative interpretation of any possible outcome.

Quote:

i disagree with your interpretation. i find "tyre" to refer more to it's political establishment than a city proper. again, your literal/figurative confusion causes improper interpretation.

Nothing in the text or any exegesis that I have ever read supports your interpretation. You are asking us to allow you to read anything you like into the text to salvage your need for complete reliability.

Quote:

and when was ezekiel completed? when exactly did tyre fall for good?

Tyre never did 'fall for good'. It's still around. The Biblical prophecy is false, plain and simple - no matter how much you try to spin it.

bfniii · 03-08-2005, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RGD

This position renders the actual use and identification of any prophecy useless for the purposes of demonstrating whether it or the Bible is true - since you can simply find a figurative interpretation of any possible outcome.

then why do skeptics insist that they are false? if there is an interpretation that shows it came true, wouldn't that be the whole point of the prophecy in the first place? if there are multiple interpretations of a particular passage, why do skeptics insist on only relying on one that shows it wasn't fulfilled?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RGD

Nothing in the text or any exegesis that I have ever read supports your interpretation.

great. does that mean my interpretation is incorrect or unsupportable?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RGD

You are asking us to allow you to read anything you like into the text to salvage your need for complete reliability.

or it just came true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RGD

Tyre never did 'fall for good'. It's still around. The Biblical prophecy is false, plain and simple - no matter how much you try to spin it.

maybe you missed where i suggested that tyre referred the common, not the proper. if that's the case, then it certainly did come true.

Spaz · 03-08-2005, 03:00 PM

I dunno if anybody's linked to this in the other thread, but WinAce wrote a pretty good article on Skeptic Report if you care to read it, bfnii. It shows how you can interpret any prophecy to come true.

02-25-2005, 09:37 AM	#3
Jon Promnitz Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: USA Posts: 60	Who is this guy kidding? Both the Old and New Testaments contain hundreds of irreconcialable internal errors and contradictions. I'm busy at the moment, but perhaps later I'll post a few. For anyone that hasn't read "Is It God's Word?" by Joseph Wheless, I strongly recommend it. The Infidels library has an unfomatted copy, but the below site has an online and downloadable zip version with formatting and links to each chapter and topic. http://members.cox.net/galatians/chapters.htm http://members.cox.net/galatians/free.htm IMHO, this is by far the most thourough exposition of internal inconsistencies in the Bible.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-02-2005, 01:00 PM	#4
external solipsism Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: San Antonio Posts: 840	The only things in the bible which have been able to be verified to have any kind of authenticity, are generally such vague or theologically unimportant, that they couldn't possibly establish a reasonable grounds to extend any kind of rational faith to the accuracy of the rest of the bible. Sure, the description in Genesis for the location of Eden proves to be enough to point to an actually existing location on Earth, but that's a long step from simply assuming that the Bible is also accurate when it says that the first man on earth was made there by God out of clay.

03-08-2005, 03:00 PM	#10
Spaz Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: 6th Circle of Hell Posts: 1,093	I dunno if anybody's linked to this in the other thread, but WinAce wrote a pretty good article on Skeptic Report if you care to read it, bfnii. It shows how you can interpret any prophecy to come true.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.