Wayne Delia

??? Since when are webmasters required to have advanced postgraduate degrees? I'm a webmaster for a website of old baseball card collecting, and I've only got an MBA. Still, the webmaster of SkepticsAnnotatedBible could possess a PhD, and you really don't know "beyond reasonable doubt" that he or she doesn't. You're just basing that on the degree to which the website disagrees with what you believe. That's a classic ad hominem argument. That's good, because if you were serious, you'd most likely be wrong. To be fair, you haven't presented what "the proper context" actually is, so your refutations thus far are not much more than handwaving and smokescreening. You even go on to admit it here: You've contradicted yourself, or at least demonstrated some hypocrisy. If you haven't "investigated the site in full," and have no intention to, then how can you conclude that each and every one of the contradictions are "rubbish" and that they were each taken out of context? For if any of them at all were legitimate, your argument is shot down, black and blue and battered and dead and floating on its belly in the bay. Further, "does one or many Gods exist?" is not a claim, but rather a question which is investigated. In order to become a Christian, you had to answer that question for yourself. Sounds like somebody's loaded for bear, looking for anything to shoot at. Why would asking "does one or many Gods exist?" qualify to lose all credibility? Is it anything more than it has the audacity to skeptically question that which you hold to be absolutely true? I suppose that's as close as we'll get to a graceful concession from you that your assessment of the contradictions as "ALL RUBBISH" was a bit premature.If one was interested enough, one could cite the contradictions that the apologists overlooked. There are quite a few irreconcilable ones. Out of curiosity, how would you respond to exegesis of any non-Christian theology which provided no contradictions? "If you submit that they are in denial, then that is an unreasonable response."

WMD

Hawkingfan

Consider the following:
Leviticus 11
6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you.

Note-- the above scripture contradicts scientific proof. Rabbits do NOT chew cud. Scientific fact.

Wayne Delia

You started out with that claim attributed to only one atheist, and now it appears you're holding all atheists responsible to uphold that claim. It's impossible to prove a universal negative assertion, yet even so, it is unreasonable to assume the contrary positive position is necessarily true. The existence of the Roman Catholic God could be true until proven false (I presume you'd have no trouble with that possibility), but then that would also be the case for all sorts of unevidenced, wacked-out assertions, such as the existence of leprechauns. You're tarring with an incredibly broad brush. That class of people would include you (since you're "on these boards"), and especially in that case, you'd be in no position to discount a proposed contradiction based on it being "taken out of context." You need to examine what your personal standards of qualification of someone being a "Bible scholar" entail. It does not imply a degree of agreement with or belief in the assertions made in the Bible, any more than a scholar of ancient Greek mythology must necessarily believe that the Greek legends are true. Done and done.You're correct in that statement. Evidently, there are 1075.You are free to question anyone's Biblical knowledge, just as we are free to question your connection to reality. The problem is, you haven't (so far, anyway) refuted any particular individual contradiction on that website, much less any of the thousand (OK, 1075) that are proposed. What you'll quickly find out is that you'll be dismissing contradictions if they conflict with what you believe, which is no refutation at all. That is exactly what is applied to the proposed contradictions in the Bible. For example, it cannot be the case that God punishes children of offenders to the third or fourth generations, while simultaneously not punishing children for the offenses of their fathers.

WMD

Wayne Delia

Thanks, but you were supposed to be arguing for the other side.

Quote:

Of course your arguement fails, since envy and jealousy are not an equal premise, nor synonyms, therefore no contradiction.

That's odd. Jealousy is defined in terms of envy. From http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=jealous, "Resentful or bitter in rivalry; envious: jealous of the success of others. Inclined to suspect rivalry. Having to do with or arising from feelings of envy, apprehension, or bitterness: jealous thoughts." For two such different terms, it is surprising that they are so intertwined. In fact, in the exact context of what is popularly known as the First Commandment, God is envious of the attention of humans which is directed toward idols or other gods, and that is explicitly stated. If He wasn't, then an entire commandment would not have been necessary.

WMD

TomboyMom

You realize how circular this is, right?

- The bible says that only the church can interpret.
- The church says that there is no contradiction in the bible.
- Therefore there is no contradiction in the bible.

In other words, the bible says that there is no contradiction in the bible. Do you have any idea how unpursuasive this is? :banghead:

Rene

Theli

If he is missfireing with his list of contradictions, then you would have no problems setting him straight, would you?
And how do you know the person who put together this list was the one who first discovered them, and not someone who had actually studied the bible?
Does a claim cease to exist once uttered by someone without a PhD?
This is nothing but an excuse on your part to not engage the criticism. I am positive that you can't, but you are free to disprove this claim at any time.
This is not a claim, it is a question. That's why there is a questionmark following the last word in the sentence.
I seriously could not answer that as I have yet to see anyone fix these contradiction without trying to mystify their meaning in order to fit within the context.

Wayne Delia

I notice that others have already taken you to task for trying to refute the original poster by essentially agreeing with the original poster. But with this statement of yours, are you saying that it is OK, much less a desirable thing, to buy into illogical propositions or claims without material evidence? That's a difficult pitch to sell. That attitude is really offensive. You are using an implicit intellectual bias and prejudice if you continue to equate "Bible scholar" with "someone who's read and agrees with the Bible." It is perfectly plausible (and it frequently happens) for two Bible scholars to put in the same amount of research and to arrive at completely different conclusions. That's how so many different sects came to be. Ironically, you proceed below to admit your own ignorance, but please don't assume everyone here is as ignorant as you are. A pro-Christianity Bible scholar is not incapable of error, and everyone is entitled to their opinion of the Bible's errancy. The question becomes whether a particular opinion can be backed up. You haven't (so far) produced anything to support your generalized dismissive claims for the 1075 contradictions on SkepticsAnnotatedBible, and the strong majority of them are reasonable contradictions or errors of fact.

Quote:

Perhaps, but since I am not learned in those texts, I thereby disqualify myself from making judgements pertaining them, until I am qualified to do so.

Your modesty and backpeddling here is much too late. You're already on record as identifying yourself as a Bible inerrantist, saying that there are no errors or contradictions in the Bible. Whether that is right or wrong is irrelevant, but it is a judgement you've made pertaining to those texts, so you've already done what you now say you won't do.

WMD

Wayne Delia

Sorry, my bad. I lost the original paragraph you were responding to, which was the following: I wasn't sure what "texts" you were referring to. The original point still stands, though: you have apparently and conveniently decided to have "faith" in Roman Catholicism instead of having "faith" in any of the above epic narratives. You came to this position without any objective manner of deciding what was valid or what was invalid, and I suppose you're asking us to have "faith" that what you chose to have "faith" in happens to be absolutely inerrant.

WMD

Wayne Delia

Ironically, that reference to the potter and his vessels (a potter can do whatever he wants to the pots he created, including breaking them) is often used to defend why God does appear to inflict punishment or death on innocents. Still, we observe that innocent people do die with no apparent reason, so the Christian apologists are left to tap-dance with assumptions that God had unknowable good reasons for allowing it to happen.

In any case, you were trying to respond to the contradiction of God punishing people to the third and fourth generations vs. the law that says children shall not be punished for the sins of their fathers. It appears that you are asserting that conveniently, every time God punishes children, grand-children, and great-grandchildren for the sins of their fathers, by a happy coincidence the descendents are also guilty of something else worthy of being punished. That's just plain ridiculous.

That, of course, is contradicted by Genesis 6:9 and Job 1:1. Apparently, according to those verses, Noah and Job were righteous and perfect and without blame. From what? From a threat of eternal punishment in hell for finite sins in a finite lifetime, and many of those sins are trivial. Where does this threat come from? God. So, it seems that God has this cosmic Mafia racketeering protection ring going on. That doesn't address the question. Why is God's wrath inflicted on the first, second, third, and fourth generations of the offender's descendents, and why did God issue another law which contradicted that particular law? So God took the opportunity of bullshitting us in Exodus 20? It's a shame He picked something so visible and popular as the first of the Ten Commandments to admit that He did, in fact, punish people for the sins of their fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers.
Shudder. Couldn't that be used as a justification of murder of any kind? And remind me again why I should buy into a religion that maintains you can be justifiably killed at any minute for the simple sin of being born as the far-removed descendent of a fictional first couple who were condemned for eating a fruit from a tree - condemned for doing a bad deed at a time when they could not distinguish good from bad?

WMD

mfaber

The concept of the original sin (OS) is the PREMIER example of punishing the children for the sins of the parents (known as "corruption of the blood" or COTB). Why condemn all subsequent generations (and that's ALL generations) of the original humans for their "crime" (What was the "crime?" Disobedience after being outrageously baited by God who made the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil the most beautiful in Eden AND after being "entrapped" in the first "sting" operation by God's undercover agent, the Serpent. Was the Serpent, Satan? Anyway, God who is supposed to know all, "let" the Serpent in, either by omission or commission). I would like you to explain to me how the OS is NOT an example of COTB, if you contend that it isn't.

The contradiction on this subject of COTB EXISTS in the Bible and you have done NOTHING to explain why it isn't one:

"Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers (Isaiah 14:21). VS "neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers" (Deut 24:16)


Of course the Bible comes down firmly on the side of promoting COTB with:

• "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation" (Exodus 20:5, 34:7, Numbers 14:18, Deut. 5:9);
• "His blood be on us, and on our children" (Matthew 27:25).
• Bastards may not enter the temple, nor their descendants (Deut. 23:2).
• God even killed King David's baby because of a sin by its father AFTER making the baby suffer for 7 days before finally offing it(2 Samuel 12:14). BTW, God commits this despicable act AFTER God also had David's wives publically raped by a neighbor in 2 Sam 12:11!. It looks like God punished a bunch of innocents just to "get at" David, not very creative of Him and MOST CRUEL because the baby and wives didn't do anything to "deserve" such treatment! Of course, such cruel and arbitrary behavior IS typical of God...the blackmailing, colossal Egotist or Cosmic GODfather (ever wonder why Mafia dons are called GODfathers?... I don't, they're just copying the quintessential Model!)Who made humanity the "Original Deal We Can't Refuse" (Believe or Burn! My Way or the Hell Highway!).
• Ahab escaped punishment for murder by making an elaborate apology, and his descendants were punished instead (I Kings 21:29).

The above is NOT an exhaustive lists of the verses in the Bible promoting COTB.

The whole notion of COTB so troubled the founding Fathers that they made it forbidden by the US Constitution (Article III, Section 3, paragraph 2)

The following is off the topic, but......
Did you know that the Jews don't have the concept of original sin? The Adam/Eve story of Genesis is a part of the Jewish canon, co-opted by Christains when they adoped the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the original Jewish canon as the OT (the LXX was abandoned by the Jews in 100 CE, but Christians latched onto it because the dicy Greek could be used to their advantage). What you don't seem to know is that the Jews don't have any concept of the "original sin" and regard it as a Christian corruption of the meaning of the text. What the Jews say about the Adam/Eve story......

1. Question: Do Jews believe in the doctrine of original sin?

2. Question: Isn't it true that humans are so innately sinful that they need an outside sinless agent to redeem them from sin?

3. Question: What are the implications of the Christian doctrine of original sin?

The doctrine of the "original sin" did not take the "form" until the 5th Century CE (centuries of arguing that such a thing existed and if it existed what was the nature and consequences the "original sin")

The concept of "original sin" is a rather late in the game interpretation of the story of Genesis by Catholic Christians (St. Augustine), as defined here:

The Catholic View

As with a large number of doctrinal points, Christians aren't in agreement on what constitutes "original sin", so there's more than just the Catholic POV:

Are Men Born Sinners?(more than one view here!)

If the Bible is the word of God and the doctrine of originial sin is 'true", then why don't Jews abide by the same concept and why are there different versions of the "Johnny-come-lately" doctrine in Christianity?