chrisengland

No one has ever proven that theres a contridiction in the Bible which it is impossible to get around.

Doddy

I have to agree with chrisengland here:

Christian Responses to SAB Contradictions

They can wiggle out of anything. Saying things like "The Gospel of John doesn't say Jesus rode only on an ass". If they have enough faith, they can believe anything.

Acetylhexene

Ah, rocket-powered goalposts.

Theropod

C O N T R A D I C T I O N

Well well, and here we have the final word don't we?

No so fast there Chris. Consider these points as going a good ways toward "proving" the "Bible" does have contradictions. This is a short list from memory, and there are dozens more. Will I have to provide a detailed listing, or will the following suffice?

The "Bible" refers to bats as birds. Wrong, and a contradiction. Wanna defend that?

There is absolutely zero evidence which can be tested and verified that the great flood of Noah ever happened. In fact there is a mass of data that easily refutes this biblical story beyond all reasonable doubt. The following is far from a complete rundown, but should get the point across.

1. There is no world wide deposit in the geologic column to establish this flood occurred. Had there been such a flood there would be traces, yet there are none. NONE!

2. There is no genetic bottleneck in any species that shows a drastic depletion of brood stock the flood would have created.

3. Radiometric dating establishes that the earth is 4.5~ billion years old. This science, and others, also establishes that the last major extinction event was over 65 million years ago. People were not around back then and the flood did not initiate this event, a massive impact of a bolide from deep space did at least contribute. There was no global flood involved.

4. Had water covered the entire earth to a depth cited in the time frame cited the change in the mass of out planet would have caused an upset of our orbit around the sun. The mass of our planet would have changed enough by all this added water to do so. This didn't happen.

So, there ya go Chris, there are contradictions within the "Bible". Whether you have the intellectual honesty to concede this is up to you. If you think you can overturn the mass of data that says you, and the "Bible" are wrong feel free to do so.

Making such a statement as you have in a den of reason and logic is an open invitation to those with the ability and motivation to make your stated position look quite ignorant. Was that your intent? Does your blind faith in this old book of fairy tales also instill such obvious denial in the face of reality?

Well?

Acetylhexene

So what about Science and History in the Bible?

Harry Bosch

Buddy: I can tell that you are new here! Just do a real quick search in this forum for "bible contradictions". And you'll find gizzilions of them. It will be a real eye opener for you.

Athrond

It does debunk inerrancy, because it doesn't say "men know that wineskins tend to burst when you reuse an old wineskin" it says that they do brake, the wine is spilled and the skins perish. Regardless of it describes "what people do" as you say.

If you are an inerranist or whatever you call it, you can't go around adding "sometimes", and "maybe" to a sentence at will and expect get away with it. If the bible is True (TM) it has to be so in every account else inerrancy fails.

The bible sentence is an obvious metaphor.

As for picking on obscure sentences in the bible instead for the obvious flood:

The flood requires knowledge about geology, and then it becomes obvious that the flood never happened, atleast to people that are not stubborn. The problem with this is that the young earth cretin will just stick to the so-called counterarguments and ignore the wall of evidence that debunks the floodmyth.

Small things like the wineskin is understandable to anyone and easily testable. So in my eyes, atleast, it's a better argument in some cases to unYECify people.

Athrond

chrisengland

I,m just saying if you took these arguments to an apologetic website they would find a way round them.
Chris

Athrond

sadly, I somewhat agree, but only by being dishonest and willfully accepting any explanation. YEC are ever so willing to jump on any explanation that explains away contradictions.



Hmmm I'll test it at christianforums

Headache

Yeah, I have to agree, this was not a very good verse to use when there are much bigger issues and which are much easier to deal with. This is not something I would fight about if I were you.