Jeremy Pallant

I have read Vanderzyden's convolutions in the Judas thread. Made me want to bang my head against a brick wall. Still, you've got to admit, his tenacity with regard to explaining away the obvious is remarkable.

If we were to apply the logic used to explain away the Judas contradiction to the contradiction between 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1, the conclusion would be that both God and Satan simultaneously tempted David to number Israel.

Jeremy Pallant

Some general replies, Vanderzyden.

Are you claiming that some versions of the Bible are less inerrant than others? If your answer is "yes", then why should we believe your personal preference over those who espouse the KJV?

Secondly, the context does not alter the fact that the Bible is wrong when it states that hares chew the cud, or that bats are birds etc.

Thirdly, I did not reference a single miracle unless you are claiming that Genesis 30:37-39 is describing a miracle.

Finally, even though the Isaiah reference may be prophecy, it is still wrong in stating that there is a snake, described as being rare in these days, that can kill with a look.

Vinnie

Inerrancy advocates state that inerrancy applies to the autographs alone so I don't think Van would say that. Here is the basic canon of inerrancy:

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/ilgwamh/csobi.html" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/ilgwamh/csobi.html</a>

Vinnie

Jeremy Pallant

I'm aware that some inerrancy advocates make that claim, Vinnie, but it's really a cop out. It's a totally unprovable claim.

Furthermore, if Vanderzyden and his fellows actually believe that, they why do they spend so much effort defending the current versions of the Bible?

If they really believe that only the original autographs are inerrant, then the simple answer to criticisms such as those raised here is "those are errors in transcription or translation."

DivineOb

The bible I use is the New Revised Standard Version.

Leviticus 11:6
The hare, for even though it chews the cud, it does not have divided hoofs; it is unclean for you

Butters

Posted by Van,

1) Why change Bibles when it gets uncofortable? Why is there more than one Bible? Who is to judge which one is true? If the NASV has something you don't like, are you then going to go back to the KJV? (Which was upheld as the true word of God for all english speaking people until the reformation) How about picking and choosing from all the variant Greek texts? Or vetter still, why not use the original hebrew text? My father, my grandfather, and my great grandfather were all told that the KJV was the true inerrent word of God by the church, are you now saying the church lied to them? Who the hell are you to change the rules in mid game?

2) If the narrow definition of science is not to believe every fariy tale and legend we run across, I'm sorry, but I'll stick to it.

3)This "read the context" stuff always cracks me up, what context can change the fact that looking at sticks will not change genetics?
(My favorite is God ordering the slaughter of infants, when you point out that the Bible claims this they ALWAYS say "you have taken it out of context" then I ask in what possiable context can the slaughtering of infants be morally defensible?
Not one coherent answer to date.)

4)How do you determine when you are reading prophecy? I would really like an answer to this. By what rules is something determined to be a prophecy, when the text itself does not claim to be one? (as in the story of Judas throwing money to the potter)
As for Isaiah,
According to the BIBLE, Isaiah made a prophecy to king Ahaez (victory), this prophecy, according to the BIBLE did not come true, so according to the BIBLE'S own standards, Isaiah was a false prophet, and is not to be believed!

5) Of course you mean do not apply any constraints that would force you to read the Bible as it was written, instead of how you wish it was written.

Yes, only "scholars can really read what the Bible says, and yes, it is "petty to hold the Bible to the same standards as any other document, and it's O.K. if these translations and interpretations have been used by the Church for years, once they become uncofortable, it is fair and honest to change them. Even if Christians themselves can't agree on the meanings, the only sure thing is that the non-believers are wrong.

Uzzah

In reply to various comments about mythical creatures (cockatrices, etc) and differing versions of the bible, I've always found this particular website to be of great help. He starts out with normal contradictions, skip down to get to the mythical creatures.

<a href="http://www.coppit.org/god/contradictions.html#NIV" target="_blank">http://www.coppit.org/god/contradictions.html#NIV</a>


Uzzah

Radorth

They actually thought bats were birds?

LOL!!!

I can think aof a few reasons they included bats in a list of birds not to be eaten. But they should have said what/ "And amongst the flying mammals you shall not eat bats."? Maybe they should have listed the technical name for the species. Surely God would know that.

Criminy. Where does this witchhunt end. This does seem awfully petty Jeremy, along with they got pi off by 5%. Aren't we grasping a little here?

Rad

wade-w

Jeremy didn't post the part about pi being off, I did; he even said he didn't think that was a good example. And if you read what I said, you will see that I repeatedly mentioned that their estimate is a good one, if the bible was written soley by bronze age goat herders. However, xtians claim that the bible is divinely inspired, and the "word of god". A 5% error seems to me to be very large in that case.

I notice you don't mention the hares and their cuds.

Bible Humper

Thanks for that link, Uzzah.

It seems that the christians were embarrassed by the fact that their holy tome looked like it was written by Gary Gygax!

I wonder how they rationalise the idea that when Yahweh said "dragon", he meant "jackal"!

Sorry about that, we know that Yahweh tried his very best and that's all that matters. Not all students can be good at every subject, perhaps his teacher should have spent more time after class reviewing the day's concepts at his own pace.