Biblical Contradictions

[achilles12604]

Ok. I looked over the last few pages of topics and I couldn't find one dedicated to this discussion (much to my surprise). Therefore I am starting it.


What are the biblical contradictions which the atheists keep refering to and what are the answers by apologists.

Ready, set . . . GO!

[McCulloch]

It is so wonderful to be so wise, in ones human eyes, and to rely on ones masterful intellect, and superior human reasoning, and human logic and human senses, to save oneself. But quite puzzling when these (so called) brilliant ones, go suddenly dull, in the pages of the Bible?
Since there are so many Scriptures from the inerrant Word of God

Please provide us with the process by which you have arrived at this wonderful premise that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. I am limited to using only human intellect, reasoning and logic.

You know human reasoning and brilliant masterful logic has never cut it, when it comes to the important things, the eternal things.
Put the fig leaf away, wrong covering, I know its your brilliant attempt, but, too bad.

The problem is that in the Bible I only see a printed document, revered by many which is ancient. I don't see that it is the Word of God. I have read it. I have studied it. Human reason does not lead me to the conclusion that it is the Word of God. Until such time as I can believe that it is the Word of God, its own claims to be the Word of God are insufficient to lead me to such a belief. So, how does it work? Does God manifest Himself in your mind and tell you, "This is My Word" ?

Rather than believing God, believing His Word, you believe a lie. Rather than believing God's Word, you subscribe to and believe in human intellect, human reason, human logic, scientific interpretation, your own way.

What other way is there? You, yourself are trying to use human reasoning to convince me to give up on human reasoning, are you not?

Your methodology has failed.

Has it?

You refuse to acknowledge God, and refuse to have a relationship with Him. It is your choice.

How is that? I cannot simply and arbitrarily choose to believe that something or other is true. All of my (and your) beliefs have a reason. Without the use of human reasoning, how is one to choose between the various alleged revelations from God: the Tanakh, the Bible, the Qu'ran, Mormon, Urantia.

You will be with like minded people for all eternity because of your choice, away from God, away from His people.

According to the Bible. But if the Bible is not God's Word, this statement (this threat) may not be true.

It is always amusing to me, the ones who champion human wisdom and intellect and logic as superior to Gods Word, always seem to be the very one who can't understand the simplest spiritual principles.

Don't presume. I understand the literal and the figurative messages outlined in the passages you have alluded to. I don't agree, but I do understand.

[WelshBoy]

They drill down into the thick ice sheet of Greenland, using something like an apple corer. This provides a long cylindrical core of ice. They then count the number of rings in the ice. Each ring, or layer, represents the annual summer and winter deposition of ice - that is the new ice being deposited on top of the old ice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GISP ... layers.gif

This they have done for the Greenland ice core and they have counted 110,000 layers representing 110,000 years of annual ice deposition. There are other methods of dating, chemical ones, which concur.

If there had been a global flood, the ice would have floated off its base at the bedrock - notice how ice cubes float in a drink? This, as you can imagine, would have disrupted the formation of those bands. So we can confidently say that there has been no global flood in the past 110,000 years.


By taking a literal view of the Bible, as you do, many religious scholars, known as young earth creationists (YECs) conclude the earth to be somewhere in the region of 6-10,000 years old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism


Thus the global flood would have occured in the past 6-10,000 years. However the ice cores tell us that there cannot have been one at least in the last 110,000 years.

-------------------------------------------------

Biker,

Still waiting for some reason to believe the Bible is the Word of God, and then plug it into my reason.


Luke

[Biker]

Where does the bible claim it is God's word?
You believe with out reason except you think it says it is God's word. But it doesn't.
You have no reasons. You don't even have a good circular reason Biker.
There was no world wide flood. If Jesus said it you have a nuber of possiblities. One he could have been wrong or was using a metaphor based on a story or tale.
Two He may not have said it and it was a fiction of the authors and they were wrong.
You must have reasons or you are irrational in your beliefs, pure and simple.

A.) "The Word of God" as a person Jesus Christ
Revelation 19:13; John 1:1,14; 1 John 1:1.
B.) "The Word of God" as Speech by God
1. Gods Decrees.Gen. 1:3,24; Psa. 33:6; Heb. 1:3.
2. Gods Words of Personal Address.Gen. 2:16-17; Gen. 3:16-19; Ex. 20:1-3; Matt. 3:17.
3. Gods Words as speech through Human Lips. Duet 18:18-20; Jer. 1:9,7; Ex. 4:12; Num. 22:38; 1 Sam. 15:3, 18, 23; 1Kings 20:36; 2 Chron. 20:20; 25:15-16; Isa. 30:12-14; Jer. 6:10-12; 36:29-31; etal.
anyone who claimed to be speaking for Him but had not received the message from Him was severly punished Ezek. 13:1-7; Duet. 18:20-22.
4. Gods Words in Written Form (the Bible). Ex. 31:18; Ex. 32:16; 34:1, 28; Deut. 31:9-13,24-26; Josh. 24:26; Isa. 30:8; Jer. 30:2; Jer. 36:2-4, 27-31; 51:60; John 14:26; cf. 16:12-13; 1 Cor. 14:37; cf. 2 Peter 3:2; 1 Cor. 14:37; Jer. 36:29-31; Deut. 31:12-13.

Biker

[Goat]

Where does the bible claim it is God's word?
You believe with out reason except you think it says it is God's word. But it doesn't.
You have no reasons. You don't even have a good circular reason Biker.
There was no world wide flood. If Jesus said it you have a nuber of possiblities. One he could have been wrong or was using a metaphor based on a story or tale.
Two He may not have said it and it was a fiction of the authors and they were wrong.
You must have reasons or you are irrational in your beliefs, pure and simple.

A.) "The Word of God" as a person Jesus Christ
Revelation 19:13; John 1:1,14; 1 John 1:1.
B.) "The Word of God" as Speech by God
1. Gods Decrees.Gen. 1:3,24; Psa. 33:6; Heb. 1:3.
2. Gods Words of Personal Address.Gen. 2:16-17; Gen. 3:16-19; Ex. 20:1-3; Matt. 3:17.
3. Gods Words as speech through Human Lips. Duet 18:18-20; Jer. 1:9,7; Ex. 4:12; Num. 22:38; 1 Sam. 15:3, 18, 23; 1Kings 20:36; 2 Chron. 20:20; 25:15-16; Isa. 30:12-14; Jer. 6:10-12; 36:29-31; etal.
anyone who claimed to be speaking for Him but had not received the message from Him was severly punished Ezek. 13:1-7; Duet. 18:20-22.
4. Gods Words in Written Form (the Bible). Ex. 31:18; Ex. 32:16; 34:1, 28; Deut. 31:9-13,24-26; Josh. 24:26; Isa. 30:8; Jer. 30:2; Jer. 36:2-4, 27-31; 51:60; John 14:26; cf. 16:12-13; 1 Cor. 14:37; cf. 2 Peter 3:2; 1 Cor. 14:37; Jer. 36:29-31; Deut. 31:12-13.

Biker

So you are saying that the Bible is God's word because the Bible says so, and you are not even looking at the individual passages to see what they really mean, but are rather lifting a sentence or two out of it to emphasise your preconceptions?

That is a statement of faith, not evidence.

[WelshBoy]

A) and B) are not relevant since they are not referring to the Bible

There are some duplications too, trying to bump up your references huh!?

1. Gods Decrees.Gen. 1:3,24; Psa. 33:6; Heb. 1:3.
2. Gods Words of Personal Address.Gen. 2:16-17; Gen. 3:16-19; Ex. 20:1-3; Matt. 3:17.
3. Gods Words as speech through Human Lips. Duet 18:18-20; Jer. 1:9,7; Ex. 4:12; Num. 22:38; 1 Sam. 15:3, 18, 23; 1Kings 20:36; 2 Chron. 20:20; 25:15-16; Isa. 30:12-14; Jer. 6:10-12; 36:29-31; etal.
anyone who claimed to be speaking for Him but had not received the message from Him was severly punished Ezek. 13:1-7; Duet. 18:20-22.
4. Gods Words in Written Form (the Bible). Ex. 31:18; Ex. 32:16; 34:1, 28; Deut. 31:9-13,24-26; Josh. 24:26; Isa. 30:8; Jer. 30:2; Jer. 36:2-4, 27-31; 51:60; John 14:26; cf. 16:12-13; 1 Cor. 14:37; cf. 2 Peter 3:2; 1 Cor. 14:37; Jer. 36:29-31; Deut. 31:12-13.

[Biker]

They drill down into the thick ice sheet of Greenland, using something like an apple corer. This provides a long cylindrical core of ice. They then count the number of rings in the ice. Each ring, or layer, represents the annual summer and winter deposition of ice - that is the new ice being deposited on top of the old ice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GISP ... layers.gif

This they have done for the Greenland ice core and they have counted 110,000 layers representing 110,000 years of annual ice deposition. There are other methods of dating, chemical ones, which concur.

If there had been a global flood, the ice would have floated off its base at the bedrock - notice how ice cubes float in a drink? This, as you can imagine, would have disrupted the formation of those bands. So we can confidently say that there has been no global flood in the past 110,000 years.


By taking a literal view of the Bible, as you do, many religious scholars, known as young earth creationists (YECs) conclude the earth to be somewhere in the region of 6-10,000 years old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism


Thus the global flood would have occured in the past 6-10,000 years. However the ice cores tell us that there cannot have been one at least in the last 110,000 years.

-------------------------------------------------

Biker,

Still waiting for some reason to believe the Bible is the Word of God, and then plug it into my reason.


Luke

Well Luke, did you have a Phd out there on the "ice sheet" documenting all this for the last 110,000 years? Maybe a "caveman hunter gatherer" Phd? Tell me how do you know there are "110,000 layers" and how do you know the supposed 110,000 layers, represents 110,000 years of annual anything? Also explain in more detail about the hypothesis of "ice floated off its base" and "notice how ice cubes float in a drink". Explain how this "disrupted the bands". Explain how "we can confidently say that there has been no global flood in the past 110,000 years". I want to hear how this all relates to the flood as detailed in the Bible, with your empirical evidence because it doesn't make sense to me? Explain?
It should be easy with all that empirical evidence?

Biker

[Biker]

They drill down into the thick ice sheet of Greenland, using something like an apple corer. This provides a long cylindrical core of ice. They then count the number of rings in the ice. Each ring, or layer, represents the annual summer and winter deposition of ice - that is the new ice being deposited on top of the old ice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GISP ... layers.gif

This they have done for the Greenland ice core and they have counted 110,000 layers representing 110,000 years of annual ice deposition. There are other methods of dating, chemical ones, which concur.

If there had been a global flood, the ice would have floated off its base at the bedrock - notice how ice cubes float in a drink? This, as you can imagine, would have disrupted the formation of those bands. So we can confidently say that there has been no global flood in the past 110,000 years.


By taking a literal view of the Bible, as you do, many religious scholars, known as young earth creationists (YECs) conclude the earth to be somewhere in the region of 6-10,000 years old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism


Thus the global flood would have occured in the past 6-10,000 years. However the ice cores tell us that there cannot have been one at least in the last 110,000 years.

-------------------------------------------------

Biker,

Still waiting for some reason to believe the Bible is the Word of God, and then plug it into my reason.


Luke

Wikipedia is useless, it is edited daily and information is changed constantly. Tomorrow it could say something totally different (sort of like evolutionary science?) I want that "empirical evidence" you love so much, that written in stone stuff. You know like the 10 Commandments.

Biker

[WelshBoy]

No my PhD is in cancer biology, but it doesn't take a whole lot of brain power to understand the concepts I'm presenting.

In Greenland the sun only shines during the summer. This results in the formation of hoar, which is a coarse grained low-density type of snow - these produce light bands in the ice cores. The snow in the winter is fine grained and high density - these produce dark bands in the ice cores.

Ice is less dense than water, so if you put some ice in water it will float. If the whole earth had been flooded then there are a some possibilities:

1) The polar ice caps melted, and added to the deluge
2) The water made the ice float off the ground

In 2) the ice would have melted as ice cubes melt in a glass of water. Since water is a warmer version of ice, it would have thawed the ice. Both of these situations would have melted the ice. If the ice had melted in the past 6-10,000 years then we'd have no ice core going back 110,000 years. Since we HAVE an ice core going back 110,000 years we can conclude that there was no global flood in that time frame.



There should be some award on this website for patience.

[WelshBoy]

Wikipedia is useless, it is edited daily and information is changed constantly. Tomorrow it could say something totally different (sort of like evolutionary science?) I want that "empirical evidence" you love so much, that written in stone stuff. You know like the 10 Commandments.

I don't know what else you're asking for!? I give Wikipedia sites since they are easy to understand, they also have references at the bottom for you to check where the data comes from, I can dig out the original papers detailing the research if you'd like, or do you want me to fly over to the states with the ice core in my luggage, and a microscope for you to count the rings yourself?

Do you have the stones the ten commandments were supposedly written in then?

[wrekk]

Wikipedia is useless, it is edited daily and information is changed constantly. Tomorrow it could say something totally different ...

Are sure you're referring to Wikipedia? Sounds more like the Bible to me...