Biblical Contradictions Answered (As best as possible) For Rook and Hammydammit

ILOVECHRIST
Theist
ILOVECHRIST's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-05-19
User is offlineOffline
Biblical Contradictions Answered (As best as possible) For Rook and Hammydammit

Ok so Rook posted this long list of contradictions for all of you members to GAWK at and point and say OOOOHHHH the BIBLE has a lot of contradictions. I figured I could do like a lot of people and just post up links to answers, but I decided since I am a CHRISTIAN, I would defend my faith through study and research. It took me just over two weeks to find all of the answers to the first section of Rook's Biblical errancy section. I notice that something that Rook does is that he puts up alot of information hoping probably that you don't read it and notice that half of his accusations are not correct. I simply took the first 16 verses and to my dismay, I noticed that several of the answers were so simple I didn't have to even search that hard. I also noticed that a few passages weren't even parallel which totally violates the accusation of BIBLICAL CONTRADICTION. And I also noted that some of the passages weren't even correct. They were close in proximity but not the correct verses.

Note to Rook: You seem to be an "intelligent" man who for some reason has gone off on this Free thinking tangent: yes it is a tangent. I don't know what happended or whom influenced you, but you seem to have a knack for reading and studying. The problem seems to be you give a lot of information and all of it isn't relevant and/or consistent. You spent a lot of the first paragraph naming the same contradiction over and over again. As another observation and this goes for Hammydammit too, STOP USING STRONGS CONCORDANCE AND THE KING JAMES BIBLE AS YOUR SOURCE FOR DISCOVERING BIBLICAL ERRORS. You seem to forget that their are other more scholarly sources out their and I always read about you kats and your trusty Strong's dictionary. Go get a Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, a New American Standard Dictionary of the Hebrew language and Dictionary of Biblical Langauages and then holla at me. Also invest in another version of the Bible. If you had read another version, several of your contradictions would not have made the list. (See no.'s 6 and 7)

Here are the first 16 scriptures with answers. You'll probably try, wait let me rephrase that, you will all make up some new rule or theory and then say my answers don't make sense or they are not correct. So I anxiously await your responses. Come at me right or don't come at all. I wont answer for the next week as I am preparing the next 15 or so verses. Well maybe I'll wait for these responses first. All my Christians let me hear you say YEEEEAAAHHHH!!!!

 

1. (a) David took seven hundred (2 Sam. 8:4), seven thousand (1 Chron. 18:4) horsemen from Hadadezer;

The Hebrew word used for 700 horsemen can be also translated COMPANIES. (Strongs Number H505 as well as Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament) According to the custom of the time, There were 10 men to every company. Which means that 2 Samuel maybe referring to the properly translated 700 Companies which would equal 7000 men, uhm, as in the 7000 men mentioned in 1 Chronicles. Much like the English language, the adjectives describes the noun in the sentence however it seems that even though the word horsemen was used in both passages, the actual translation could be determined by the number used. With 700 being used in 2 Samuel then the Hebrew word parash would be translated 700 companies of horsemen which would equal 7000 men as mentioned in 1 Chronicles 18:4

2. (b) Ahaziah was 22 (2 Kings 8:26), 42 (2 Chron. 22:2) years old when he began to reign;

This answer is lengthy however I found a source that illustrates the answer much better than I can articulate it. Essentially the answer is historical in nature. You may want to considering reading the Nelson’s Illustrated Manners and Customs book. It would give you insight into the times of the Bible vs. today’s society.

This link also discovered something’s that I had uncovered as of yet.

http://www.febc.edu.sg/VPP4.htm

3. (c) Jehoiachin was 18 (2 Kings 24:Cool, 8 (2 Chron. 36:9) years old when he began to reign and he reigned 3 months (2 Kings 24:Cool, 3 months and10 days (2 Chron. 36:9);

The answer for this is historical in nature. Jehoiachin was 18 when he reigned according to 2 Kings. The Chronicles account is a little more detailed. The solution, hinges on the phrase 8 years old from 2 Chronicles 36:9. The 8 years does not refer to the actual age of Jehoiachin but is a time marker pointing to an event: the first invasion of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians. In 605 B.C., Nebuchadnezzar invaded the Mediterranean countries including Judah. It was during this first invasion when Daniel and many others were taken to Babylon in what was to be the first of 3 deportations. The second was in 598-597 B.C. with the taking of Jehoiachin’s father Jehoiakim. The Babylonians left Jehoiachin in power as a sort of puppet regent, but only for 3 months (2 Chron. 36:9 gives the exact figure of 3 months, 10 days). Like his father, Jehoiachin rebelled and the Babylonians returned to have him removed. They took him back to Babylon, and left his brother Zedekiah as king. Jehoiachin's appointment as king was 8 years after Nebuchadnezzar came to power and invaded Judah. This is the reason 2 Chronicles 36:9 has “8 years old.” Second Kings 24:12 affirms this solution where it states, “and the king of Babylon took him (Jehoiachin) in the 8th year of his (Nebuchadnezzar) reign.”

On some occasions the biblical writers will count chronological dates from significant events. We reckon chronology in similar ways in our modern world. For all Americans, the 11th day of the 9th month of the year 2001 will forever be a significant date. In fact our society speaks of a pre-9/11 world and a post 9/11 world. This is the case here with Jehoiachin. The writer of Chronicles is reckoning his kingly appointment and his eventual capture from the time Nebuchadnezzar came to rule Babylon. Ezekiel, for example, does this in his book. He reckons dates and years from the captivity of Judah, (Ez. 1:7, 33:21, 40:1). Another example is found in 2 Chronicles 16:1 where the 36th year spoken of Asa may refer to the number of years after the division of the kingdom in 930 B.C., rather than his actual years as king.

(Sources: Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties)

4. (d) There were in Israel 8000,000 (2 Sam. 24:9); 1,1000,000 (1 Chron. 21:5) men that drew the sword and there were 500,000 (2 Sam. 24:9), 470,000 (1 Chron. 21:5) men that drew the sword in Judah;

The answer lays in the translation. The first passage states that Joab gave the census to David and the number was 800,000 while the second passage says that their were 1,100,000 men who drew the sword. The word VALIANT is the key. There were a total of 1,100,000 men however only 800,000 were valiant. The other 300,000 were reserves. There is a classification between one who draws the sword and a valiant man who draws the sword. An example would be a military ranking such as a sergeant vs. a general. Both would be in their respects services but have significantly different rankings.

As for the 500,000 vs. 6 states that Joab had not finished the census because of David’s conviction of sin. He did not include Levi or Benjamin. So the 470,000 would have been and accurate number at that time.

5. (e) There were 550 (1 Kings 9:23), 250 (2 Chron. 8:10) chiefs of the officers that bare the rule over the people;

You have to read 4 different passages to get the answer. First there are two passages that give you two numbers in 2 Kings. 1 Kings 5:16 says that there were 3300 chief officers. And then 1 Kings 9:23 says that there were 550 chief officers. This is a total of 3850 officers to watch over the project. In 2 Chronicles 2:18 we find that the Chronicler says that there are 3600 officers. In 2 Chronicles 8:10 we hear that there are 250 officers which once again gives us the number of 3850. Both passages are in harmony as different classifications are made in the different accounts.

6. (f) Saul's daughter, Michal, had no sons (2 Sam. 6:23), had 5 sons (2 Sam. 21:6) during her lifetime;

See this is how you get people thinking you have a valid argument. Unless this is a misprint, these verses don’t have anything to do with each other. Now vs. 8 would be the correct verse. And here is the answer. The original Hebrew word in 2 Sam. 6:23 is H4324 which is translated Michal. The original Hebrew word for the name in 2 Sam. 21:6 is H4764 which is translated Merab. They aren’t even the same people.

7. (g) Lot was Abraham's nephew (Gen. 14:12), brother (Gen. 14:14);

The term "brother" used in Genesis 14:14 is the same term used for "relative" which is how the verse is translated in other versions. The King James Bible, from which is the reference here, does not use the term "relative" once in the Bible. The word, however, in the Hebrew is 'ach, which is a primary root meaning close relative or even someone that bears a close resemblance. It generally indicates kindred, however. It is used over 600 times in the Bible and is translated in a variety of ways depending on context. Lot is Haran's son which makes him Abraham's nephew and relative.

8. (h) Joseph was sold into Egypt by Midianites (Gen. 37:36), by Ishmaelites (Gen. 39:1);

According the Hebrew history, Abraham had a son by Hagar the Egyptian maiden and his name was Ishmael. Then Abraham had five more sons by Keturah which would have made these five people Ishmael’s brothers. Being that Abrahams son, MIDIAN, is where the Midianites came from and Ishmael was his brother Ishmaelites came from the same source. The Midianites were those related to Midian and the Ishmaelites were those related to Ishmael. It would seem that sense they had the same father, they would be related. Judges 8 confirms the interchangeability of names. In short the Midianites were the Ishmaelites.

9. (i) Saul was killed by his own hands (1 Sam. 31:4), by a young Amalekite (2 Sam. 1:10), by the Philistines (2 Sam. 21:12);

It is a well known fact that Saul was struck down by the Philistines Archers. He was wounded beyond being able to continue to fight. He then asked his armour bearer to kill him and he refused and he fell on his own sword. His armour bearer did the same. This is the accurate account of 1 Sam 31:4. All commentaries and theologians or anyone who has answered this question will tell you that the Amalekite not only lied about the story, but historically had his arms and legs cut off for lying and he was hanged on a wall. In the last passage the Philistine archers wounded Saul so bad, he would have died anyway. The fact that the Philistines had killed Saul’s sons and that is the battle at which Saul died, would have afforded them the credit for killing Saul, however it was Saul’s own sword that killed him.

10. (j) Solomon made of a molten sea which contained 2,000 (1 Kings 7:26), 3,000 (2 Chron. 4:5) baths;

The Hebrew verb rendered "contained" and "held" is different from that translated "received"; and the meaning may be that the sea ordinarily contained 2,000 baths. But when filled to its utmost capacity it received and held 3,000 baths. Thus the chronicler simply mentions the amount of water that would make the sea like a flowing spring rather than a still pool. This informs us that 3,000 gallons of water were required to completely fill the sea which usually held 2,000 gallons. This is identical to any swimming pool that is not filled to the brim but can hold a few thousand more gallons of water, however it is not necessary.

11. (k) The workers on the Temple had 3,300 (1 Kings 5:16), 3,600 (2 Chron. 2:18) overseers;

Answered this already in number 5.

12. (l) The earth does (Eccle. 1:4), does not (2 Peter 3:10) abideth forever;

These are not even parallel passages. Now you are reaching. The Eccl passage is wisdom literature. The example made here is that in mans knowledge would lend us to believe that mans knowledge will lead them to think that this present world (earth) will last forever. You must pick scriptures and their entire context. 2 Peter assures us the Heaven and Earth will pass away as well the works within the earth. This is what all believers adhere to. You are comparing poetry and wisdom vs. prophecy.

13. (m) If Jesus bears witness of himself his witness is true (John 8:14), is not true (John 5:31);

Jesus here is speaking of the unity of the Father and the Son. The first passage testifies to the oneness of the Father and the Son. Jesus says His testimony is true, if and only if according to vs. 16 that the Father testifies to Jesus’ testimony. In the second passage, Jesus says the exact same thing. He states, that if I testify by myself, alone, meaning with any other backing His testimony, then His testimony is false. He then says that there is another who testifies with and for me. Both passages are in complete agreement.

14. (n) Josiah died at Megiddo (2 Kings 23:29-30), at Jerusalem (2 Chron. 35:24);

Both passages state that Josiah was buried in Jerusalem. This is similar to the Saul passage. Josiah was so mortally wounded at Megiddo, that the credit to the death would have been Megiddo. We must note that in 2 Chr passage after being wounded by the archers almost fatally, Josiah commands that his body be taken to Jerusalem, so the account would allow for his last breath to quite possibly attributed to the battle of Megiddo even though his passing may have been in Jerusalem

15. (o) Jesus led Peter, James, and John up a high mountain after six (Matt. 17:1, Mark 9:2), eight (Luke 9:28) days;

(Luke 9:28-29) - "And some eight days after these sayings, it came about that He took along Peter and John and James, and went up to the mountain to pray. 29And while He was praying, the appearance of His face became different, and His clothing became white and gleaming."

In the Greek in both Matthew 17:1 and Mark 9:2, it says, "And after six days..." The word "after" in Greek is "meta." According to the Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon "meta" means, "with, after, or behind." In Luke 9:28, it says something different. It says "And some eight days after these sayings . . ." (NASB). The Greek word "some" is "hosei" which means "about" or "nearly." Other translations render it the same way.

* "About eight days after Jesus said this . . ." (Luke 9:28, NIV).

* ". . .about an eight days after these sayings . . ." (Luke 9:28, KJV).

* ". . .about eight days after these sayings . . ." (Luke 9:28, NKJV).

* "Now about eight days after these sayings . . ." (Luke 9:28, RSV).

* ". . . about eight days after these sayings . . ." (Luke 9:28, 1901 AS)

Luke 9:28 is an approximation evidenced by it saying "about eight days after . . ." Matthew 17:1 and Mark 9:2 are more precise. They say "after six days." Logically, eight days is after six days, so there is no logical contradiction. But, the key lies in Luke saying "about eight days later." Luke was giving an approximation. Matthew and Mark were more precise. Remember Luke was not an eyewitness as Matthew and Mark were. So he would have been afforded the opportunity to give an approximation.

16. (p) Nebuzaradan came unto Jerusalem on the seventh (2 Kings 25:Cool, tenth (Jer. 52:12) day of the fifth month.

2 Kings says he came "unto" Jerusalem and Jeremiah states he came "into" Jerusalem. His arrival at and entry into Jerusalem were therefore different days. This is indicating the army was encamped about Jerusalem for three days before they entered and destroyed it. He came twice; once to persuade Jerusalem to surrender (the 7th day) and the second time to wage war (the 10th day). Upon his arrival the army resided there for three days before destroying it.

End of Pt. 1

I gotta believe that you guys are smarter than this. Please on the next go around, read the entire passage first and then introduce them as contradictions. Also please stop tyring to compare what customs you live by in this age to the Bible times. They are 2000 years apart and entirely different cultures.

Yours In CHRIST, THE PREACHERMAN

I'll Defend God. Don't Test Me. You'll Lose


sapphen
Theist
sapphen's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2007-01-22
User is offlineOffline
ROFL!!!!! gadfly, your

ROFL!!!!! gadfly, your whole outlook dramatically changed from your first few posts on this topic.  i think we all kind of looked forward to rook answering this post, which he did respond. i'm sure if you have faith and hope rook will find the time to give an educated atheist point of view on the subject.  i do admit though ILOVE may be slightly arrogant (no offense ILOVE), but he does bring good points.  he has not stated anything that has not been rational.

if one suggests that their opinion should be overlooked you sometimes think how confident is that perspective.  funny enough, your attitude seems very familiar to a similar post i read on a christian forum when an atheist posted a few bible contradictions.  you are refusing to even see or acknowledge his points.  that is the very attitude that RRS is trying to fight, or from what i understand, we are wanting people to use their brains and not their feelings.

i do respect you opinion and i don't mean to attack you, but to bluntly urge you to consider your thoughts and not to type hostile or irrational.  i suggest that if rook can not make it in here, (i do understand how it is to have a lot of the table), maybe you can do some research and bring some counters of your own.

you scarecrowed his points to a "translation error".  if you are to effectively argue people you have to seek to understand where he is coming from.  if your point of view is correct you have nothing to lose by putting on his shoes.  you can not effectively negate his whole presentation with a slight brush.

i think BGH had a tremendous point in one of his blogs... part of communication is making you point known in such a manner that the person you are talking with can relate.  our job, as a rational human being, is not to knock someone in the head with soften personal attacks but to seek rapport.  opinions are more than welcomed by anyone... everyone has them, but fact and research pulls the weight.

ILOVE, you bring good points here and although others might not show the appreciation you deserve, i am thankful that you posted.  pay no mind the the quaveling of those that are frustrated with the situation cause they have been ridiculed by our supposed christian brothers.  we have to work hard not to make the same mistakes as others before us. stand strong in the Lord, my He guide your words and attitude.

May God bless us and give us the words to express our ideas in a creative and civil manner, while providing us an ear that we may truly hear each other, and a voice to clearly project our thoughts.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2840
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Let me take a look at a

Let me take a look at a copule of these responses.

ILOVECHRIST wrote:

1. (a) David took seven hundred (2 Sam. 8:4), seven thousand (1 Chron. 18:4) horsemen from Hadadezer;

The Hebrew word used for 700 horsemen can be also translated COMPANIES. (Strongs Number H505 as well as Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament)

If this is the case, can you tell me why the professional translators all used 'horsemen' instead of companies? Why do you think your revision is superior to that of the professionals?

Can you also explain why other theists come up with 'solutions' that contradict yours?

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/700or7000.html

Can you also tell me why the NASB and the GWT list 1700?

 

NASB: David captured from him 1,700 horsemen and 20,000 foot soldiers; and David hamstrung the chariot horses, but reserved [enough] of them for 100 chariots. (NASB ©1995)


GWT: David took 1,700 horsemen and 20,000 foot soldiers from him. David also disabled all but 100 of their horses so that they couldn't pull chariots. (GOD'S WORD®)

Quote:

According to the custom of the time, There were 10 men to every company.

Where are you getting this claim from? You just assert it was a custom, where's your evidence? Do you mean that 10 men are ridign one chariot? How are 10 men riding one chariot? Where's your evidence that this is the case?

Quote:

Which means that 2 Samuel maybe referring to the properly translated 700 Companies which would equal 7000 men, uhm, as in the 7000 men mentioned in 1 Chronicles.

Only if your ad hoc response can be justified.

 

Quote:

2. (b) Ahaziah was 22 (2 Kings 8:26), 42 (2 Chron. 22:2) years old when he began to reign;

This answer is lengthy however I found a source that illustrates the answer much better than I can articulate it.

Can you just give us a quick review, so I can examine it?

Quote:

3. (c) Jehoiachin was 18 (2 Kings 24:Cool, 8 (2 Chron. 36:9) years old when he began to reign and he reigned 3 months (2 Kings 24:Cool, 3 months and10 days (2 Chron. 36:9);

The answer for this is historical in nature. Jehoiachin was 18 when he reigned according to 2 Kings. The Chronicles account is a little more detailed. The solution, hinges on the phrase 8 years old from 2 Chronicles 36:9. The 8 years does not refer to the actual age of Jehoiachin but is a time marker pointing to an event:

You're just citing Archer here. It's interesting to note that some theists merely claim a copying error left out the '1" in front of the 8.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/8or18.html

However, I must ask you: what is your justification for claiming that the bible authors used the ages "18" and "8" in two senses?

Quote:

4. (d) There were in Israel 8000,000 (2 Sam. 24:9); 1,1000,000 (1 Chron. 21:5) men that drew the sword and there were 500,000 (2 Sam. 24:9), 470,000 (1 Chron. 21:5) men that drew the sword in Judah;

The answer lays in the translation.

So we again must ask:

1) What makes you the superior translator over the professionals?

2) What non arbitrary method are you using to re-translate this passage? If you can't respond, your 'retranslation' is ad hoc.

Quote:

The first passage states that Joab gave the census to David and the number was 800,000 while the second passage says that their were 1,100,000 men who drew the sword. The word VALIANT is the key. There were a total of 1,100,000 men however only 800,000 were valiant. The other 300,000 were reserves.

What justification do you have for this claim, other than that it solves the contradiction?

Quote:

As for the 500,000 vs. 6 states that Joab had not finished the census because of David’s conviction of sin. He did not include Levi or Benjamin. So the 470,000 would have been and accurate number at that time.

It's interesting that passages 5 and 6 contradict each other:

5 Joab gave the number of the census of all the people to David. And all Israel were 1,100,000 men who drew the sword; and Judah was 470,000 men who drew the sword. 6 But he did not number Levi and Benjamin among them, for the king’s command was abhorrent to Joab.

5 states that he gave the census for ALL the people of David.

Quote:

6. (f) Saul's daughter, Michal, had no sons (2 Sam. 6:23), had 5 sons (2 Sam. 21:6) during her lifetime;

See this is how you get people thinking you have a valid argument. Unless this is a misprint, these verses don’t have anything to do with each other. Now vs. 8 would be the correct verse. And here is the answer. The original Hebrew word in 2 Sam. 6:23 is H4324 which is translated Michal. The original Hebrew word for the name in 2 Sam. 21:6 is H4764 which is translated Merab. They aren’t even the same people.

Odd that again, the professional translators get it all wrong, just when you need them to be wrong.

Quote:

8. (h) Joseph was sold into Egypt by Midianites (Gen. 37:36), by Ishmaelites (Gen. 39:1);

In short the Midianites were the Ishmaelites.

Intersting that AboutBibleProphecy.com solves this is a different fashion:

 

Response: Both are true. Genesis 37:36 (NIV) says that the Midianites sold Joseph to Potiphar. And Genesis 39:1 (NIV) says that the Ishmaelites sold Joseph to Potiphar. And that might seem like a contradiction, but Genesis 37:28 (NIV), shows that both the Ishmaelites and the Midianites were involved in the selling of Joseph:

"So when the Midianite merchants came by, his brothers pulled Joseph up out of the cistern and sold him for twenty shekels of silver to the Ishmaelites, who took him to Egypt." - Genesis 37:28 (NIV).

In this verse, both tribes are mentioned in connection with the sale of Joseph.

Whereas CARM 'solves' it as you do:

According to Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harper’s Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.) 1985, the term "Ishamelite" was synomous with the term "Midianites."

Wheres apologetic press combines both arguments:

The different names given to the traders...do not show that the account has been drawn from different legends, but that these tribes were often confounded, from the fact that they resembled one another so closely, not only in their common descent from Abraham (Gen 16:15 and 25:2), but also in the similarity of their mode of life and their constant change of abode, that strangers could hardly distinguish them, especially when they appeared not as tribes but as Arabian merchants, such as they are here described as being (1996).

Quote:

9. (i) Saul was killed by his own hands (1 Sam. 31:4), by a young Amalekite (2 Sam. 1:10), by the Philistines (2 Sam. 21:12);

It is a well known fact that Saul was struck down by the Philistines Archers.

Is it really? How do you know this? You tend to build your arguments from naked assertions. You need to justify these premises.


I'll stop here for now, mainly because I find this less interesting than I originally imagined... most of these contradictions are of very little importance to anyone but an inerrantist.

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2840
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
sapphen wrote: you

sapphen wrote:

you scarecrowed his points to a "translation error". if you are to effectively argue people you have to seek to understand where he is coming from.

We do. Whenever there is a contradiction in the bible, he simply assumes there must be a way to solve it. The assumptions in his premises are completely unsubstantiated. He blithely asserts things like "it's common knowldge that Saul died by  X"  Is it? He simply assumes that a company would include 10 men? Why? Because that's what's needed to solve the problem! No other justification is given.

As an atheist, I am not commited to any passage in the bible necessarily being a contradiction.  So there's no need for me to resist any particular solution. But I don't see any actual argument anywhere, in the end, every conclusion is based on at least one completely unsubstantiated asumption. Please go through his post and see for yourself.

He needs to justify these assumptions. Ironically, had he really researched any of this, he'd have his justifications already.  

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


sapphen
Theist
sapphen's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2007-01-22
User is offlineOffline
tango!!! glad you could pop

tango!!! glad you could pop in... i was expecting a little more, nonetheless it's good to see a rational mind.

you claim that his responded are irrational but where is proof?  it just sounds a little too familiar to the old tired theistic responses... whoops, i mean tired old atheist responses to tired old theistic  responses to bible contradiction claims - is everything that we can not answer just a tired old argument that we don't have to deal with anymore.

 maybe logic could apply to history?  just in the reading and research i have done in translations and history i think we may never know the answer.  where does the burden of proof lay in this situation?  in the hands of the atheist that make the claim that the bible is contradicting or theists that claim it isn't?

one of ILOVE's point is that some of the contradictions are not true by any means, translation error or not. it seems more like propaganda and quick assumptions.

"...I twist my heart round again..." -Anne Frank

HOLY CRUD!! she took her heart out and twisted it around! that is soooo fake! Anne Frank is a lier and fraud!   you see how absurd some of this is?

 since when did "out of context" and "translation error" not been rational?  find the facts to counter ILOVE's claims if you can but don't take away his rational answers because you are offended.

todangst, you are a rational person and very intelligent and i do look forward to an educated and completely logical answer.  i completely respect you perspective.  please don't take me too serious but do not disregard another's thoughts because they sound something like you heard before.  just because one does not agree with something else does not make the irrational.

WE ALL ARE irrational and delusional in some areas of our lives... if you are the exception please cast the first stone.

May God bless us and give us the words to express our ideas in a creative and civil manner, while providing us an ear that we may truly hear each other, and a voice to clearly project our thoughts.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2840
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
sapphen wrote:

sapphen wrote:

tango!!! glad you could pop in... i was expecting a little more, nonetheless it's good to see a rational mind.

Thanks my friend. I've not investigated many of these particular contradiciton claims in detail, so I don't have too much to say as of yet.

Quote:

you claim that his responded are irrational but where is proof?

My proof is that the arguments I've examined all include an unjustified assumption. For example, the assumption that a company includes 10 men... where's the justification? It sounds good, but where does this assertion come from?

It seems so far that the sole reason for it being '10' men is that 10 men are required to solve the problem!

Quote:

it just sounds a little too familiar to the old tired theistic responses... whoops, i mean tired old atheist responses to tired old theistic responses to bible contradiction claims - is everything that we can not answer just a tired old argument that we don't have to deal with anymore.

It's a bit more than that. The usual response to a contradiction is "translation error" or 'out of context!"

But there are two general problems with this reasoning.

1) It requires that laymen are better translators than the experts. I'm not ruling this out, but it's awfully suspicious, isn't it?

2) The process is entirely ad hoc: a theist responds with 'out of context!" or 'translation error" without explaining what non arbitrary method he is relying on... if his sole motive is to solve a contradiction, then... it's ad hoc.

So I suppose the real 'tired' person is me: tired that I have to keep pointing out these methodological problems.

Quote:

maybe logic could apply to history? just in the reading and research i have done in translations and history i think we may never know the answer. where does the burden of proof lay in this situation? in the hands of the atheist that make the claim that the bible is contradicting or theists that claim it isn't?

The fallback is the null position: neither contradiction nor cohesion. So the burden of proof clearly lies on the atheist... he's asserting a contradiction, he must demonstrate it.

In return, the theist response cannot simply assume the truth of the premises it relies on in response. In addition, the theist response cannot simply be ad hoc: a general method of biblical hermeneutics is required.

Quote:

one of ILOVE's point is that some of the contradictions are not true by any means, translation error or not. it seems more like propaganda and quick assumptions.

"...I twist my heart round again..." -Anne Frank

HOLY CRUD!! she took her heart out and twisted it around! that is soooo fake! Anne Frank is a lier and fraud! you see how absurd some of this is?

since when did "out of context" and "translation error" not been rational?

Good question. I just explained when above. When the claims are ad hoc.

Quote:

find the facts to counter ILOVE's claims if you can but don't take away his rational answers because you are offended.

I have found these facts: I've asked him to justify the premises he relies upon.

As for being 'offended', I feel no offense. Nothing here even concerns my position as an atheist.

Quote:

todangst, you are a rational person and very intelligent and i do look forward to an educated and completely logical answer.

Then reread my post and you'll see that this is what I have given.

Quote:

i completely respect you perspective. please don't take me too serious but do not disregard another's thoughts because they sound something like you heard before. just because one does not agree with something else does not make the irrational.

I do hope that you now see that my position is not quite as trite as it appears at first glance. I've not given a blow by blow response because I've not researched these contradictions, all I can do at present is examine methodological flaws in the arguments, and the arguments appear to suffer greatly from them. One can't simply assert one's premises, and yet, this is what his arguments (as I've seen so far) do. If he wishes to research his claims, he'd need to provide some historical corroboration for the premises he relies upon.

 

Quote:

WE ALL ARE irrational and delusional in some areas of our lives... if you are the exception please cast the first stone.

I AGREE. After all, I'm a psychologist. If this weren't true, I'd starve. I'm not simply saying 'he's irrational', I'm saying his arguments suffer from methodological flaws that make them irrational. But again, I've only exxamined a few of them.

I'd also like to reiterate that I have no need for any of these contradictions to stand... I have no stake in the matter... most of them appear trivial to me, they could only concern an inerrantist. 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


sapphen
Theist
sapphen's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2007-01-22
User is offlineOffline
todangst, great work on the

todangst, great work on the above post.  apparently you where working on it while i was typing response to you.  i must apologize for my quick assumption.  thank you for providing some good information to look through.  i will do some research myself on the points you brought but i think it would be best left up to ILOVE to respond.

i do agree that ILOVE does need to quote some sources and i hope in his future posts he would provide some.

as a follower of God and not necessarily a "christian", i do not have to adhere to the mainstream thoughts on what the bible may or may not say about certain subjects.  i have my own personal relationship with God and His Word. there is a difference in reading a poem about the ocean and going to the ocean... if you could truly understand that you might get an idea of what i just said.

 i'm a little fuzzy on the laws of logic but would it be safe to say that some might read the bible and assume that it might have faults?  i think the point still stand that some of the contradictions are not correct in any sense and should be removed.  if a theist came on here providing incorrect or misleading information you guys would tear him apart.  are you that scared that you can not look at yourselves and judge by the same standards?

you did good on responding rational to just a "few" of the points ILOVE brought... but in the words of the atheist, "what about the other ones?"

May God bless us and give us the words to express our ideas in a creative and civil manner, while providing us an ear that we may truly hear each other, and a voice to clearly project our thoughts.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2840
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
sapphen wrote: todangst,

sapphen wrote:

todangst, great work on the above post. apparently you where working on it while i was typing response to you. i must apologize for my quick assumption. thank you for providing some good information to look through. i will do some research myself on the points you brought but i think it would be best left up to ILOVE to respond.

Thanks, but oddly enough, I still agree with your post, even if it came after that one! I've not responded in depth.

 

Quote:
 

 i do agree that ILOVE does need to quote some sources and i hope in his future posts he would provide some.

Yes. I think he CAN solve some of them. But he would need to back up the premises he relies upon.

Quote:
 

as a follower of God and not necessarily a "christian", i do not have to adhere to the mainstream thoughts on what the bible may or may not say about certain subjects. i have my own personal relationship with God and His Word. there is a difference in reading a poem about the ocean and going to the ocean... if you could truly understand that you might get an idea of what i just said.

I am glad to see you write this. You clearly will not be dogmatic about this... if the case is strong for contradiction, you'll accept it, if not, you'll reject it.

 

Quote:

i'm a little fuzzy on the laws of logic but would it be safe to say that some might read the bible and assume that it might have faults? i think the point still stand that some of the contradictions are not correct in any sense and should be removed.

I'd be stunned if this WERN'T the case, wouldn't you? After all, the RRS team is not claiming  to be inerrant! 

It's probaly the case that:

Some are contradictions

Some are not.

Some contradictions have not yet been found yet.

And so on...

Quote:
 

 if a theist came on here providing incorrect or misleading information you guys would tear him apart. are you that scared that you can not look at yourselves and judge by the same standards?

Excellent point. Again, this is an easy one for me, because I don't see this as a foundation for my atheism, so I think it would be better for me to consider: would I be willing to critically examine a core belief?

That's a tough one. Of course I want to say 'yes', but it's easy to say, and hard to do, right?

Quote:
 

 you did good on responding rational to just a "few" of the points ILOVE brought... but in the words of the atheist, "what about the other ones?"

Well said. I will give a few more a try later, but again, I'm tied by the fact that I've not researched this very well, so I have a choice: devote most of my day to reading  or just continuing to kibitz.... I'll probably pick the latter!

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


ILOVECHRIST
Theist
ILOVECHRIST's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-05-19
User is offlineOffline
Well this is what I waited

Well this is what I waited for a response from an educated responder with some factual info to talk to.  Todangst let me shut you down real quick as to save you from posting back and forth.  First of all a little history on the subject.  We as theists do hold fast to the notion that some of the TRANSLATIONS may have some translation errors due to the fact that the languages used in the Bible are not OUR NATIVE TONGUES. While we may find variances in the words used from the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS, we nonetheless find that the BIBLE in its original form is inerrant. There are thought for thought translations and word for word. Here is the list: READ IT HERE

Now you bring claims that the translation errors are not valid being that you ask why do Bible translator pick certain words over another? This question is plan DUMB and not even worth answering but for the sake of some other person out there who may be undecided in their view, I will take this time to address.  WORDS WITHOUT CONTEXT BECOME USELESS.  What if I ask you, "WHAT DOES SPRING MEAN"  Well there are several definitions; there is a season, there is a mechanical part to a pen, there is an action involving jumping (basketball) Unless I put them into a sentence then you cannot know the meaning of the word I am giving you. What does the word TRUNK mean?  Well lets see, there is the trunk of a car, the bottom of a tree, or and elephant's trunk which is a part of it's body. It is essential to search out the word in its context to derive a proper meaning.

When speaking on the errors of the Bible, you have to, and I repeat, you have to LOOK at the original language, FIRST to gain any type of context.  You have to search out the meaning to find out how the practice of Biblical times were established to gain a correct view of what you are reading and what is the purpose of the passage. This is CALLED AUTHORIAL INTENT.  If you don't know the authorial intent, then you cannot CORRECTLY communicate the passage being read. If you can't clearly communicate it, then how can you dispute it?  You can do like you JUST DID and input your own thoughts and then make up some theory that is incorrect, present to someone else who has not read the passage, and make them believe your point is valid. This is called Isogesis.  Rook does this a whole lot.  He will something like, there is no contemporary argument the Jesus existed.  He claims that the part in Josephus is added or it could not be talking about Jesus. He will then state that Josephus' entry about Jesus is not authentic and discredits Josephus' work.  On the next set of contradictions Rook will use a large portion (40 chapters) of Josephus' work to validate that Josephus did not mention anything about Herod killing all the firstborn in Israel in Matthew. Oh but wait, Josephus' work is DISCREDITED in one Contradiction (the Life of Jesus) and CREDITED in ROOK's Opinionated essay(the absence of Herod's order to kill all children). Is Josephus creditable or not? This is what you guys specialize in: Bending the INFORMATION to make it appear as if you did some serious study to make a point.  Now onto your post:

 

todangst wrote:
If this is the case, can you tell me why the professional translators all used 'horsemen' instead of companies? Why do you think your revision is superior to that of the professionals?

I never in any of my posts said that any of my posts were superior to any others.  I simply did study on the passage looked at all the presented facts and presented the most logical answer according to the facts.  The hebrew word for horsemen can mean horsemen or companies.  This is in ANY hebrew dictionary.  I will let you choose.  The sources I used was several dictionaries, Nelsons Illustrated Manners and Customs Book as well as John Wesley's works (founder of the Methodist Church).  You may also search www.thebereans.net which is an Apologetics website based out of the Philippines. And if you have $400.00 you can invest in Logos study software which will include 400 other books that you can use to further your studies.  (This is what I have). In any language the Adjective describes the noun. If the noun in the Adjective for the sake of this argument is a quantity, then the noun will be determined by what adjective is being used. 700 horseman and 7000 horsemen would be equal according to any Hebrew dictionary.  700 companies x 10 men each = 7000 horsemen. Guess what the same arithmetic is used in I Kings 4:26. Here are the verses

I Kings 4:26 "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen" and II Chron. 9:25 "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen" as a contradiction. There is no contradiction. He had 40,000 stalls for horses yet only 4,000 stalls for the chariots. They had 10 men and 10 horses per chariot in case they got a "flat tire." See II Sam 10:18 "And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the men of seven hundred chariots of the Syrians," and I Chron. 119:18 "But the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew of the Syrians seven thousand men which fought in chariots," to show the same point. The men of 700 chariots would be 7000 men.

Being that I am not a jewish person, who am I to bark at the fact that the originator of the language did not take the time out to create an ENTIRELY different word for company to satisfy you. 

As far as your question regarding why someone else found something different. Well lets see, when you put 700 horsemen in the google toolbar and press enter guess what I get?  I get the link you posted on this web page a means of discrediting my study. Using google alone does not serve as study. Don't insult my intelligence. If you think I didn't just call your bluff, well here is the link so others can see how much time you put into studying: CLICK HERE Second if you had read the entire page, you will find out that the writer of that website did also use the same response that I had in reason Number two.  We also not that because the writer of that website is using a geocities account, they may be just posting a bunch of articles which does make them credible.  I attempted to post only websites and articles that could be traced to Theological organizations, to avoid from using the types of "wiki-like" links you just posted. I also cited sources with REAL ISBN numbers so that you could do the research yourself and not just use google as your main arsenal.

Regarding the NASB and GWT translation; I will research this. As a side note, in the original Hebrew, the Hebrew word is STILL 700 not 1700

todangst wrote:
Can you just give us a quick review, so I can examine it?


No you can read the link I provided for you and examine it that way. This article will give you in detail what you need to examine the ages of king Ahaziah.  Just so you say that I am not avoiding the question here is the link once again from the original essay: http://www.febc.edu.sg/VPP4.htm

todangst wrote:
You're just citing Archer here. It's interesting to note that some theists merely claim a copying error left out the '1" in front of the 8.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/8or18.html

However, I must ask you: what is your justification for claiming that the bible authors used the ages "18" and "8" in two senses?

Who is Archer? First of all STOP USING THAT WEAK LINK YOU GOT FROM GOOGLE TO SOLIDFY YOUR ARGUEMENT. YOU'RE MAKING ME ANGRY!  Do some real research and then present your argument  My justification is not that of my own.  Once again I will cite more sources.  None of which I doubt you will read. Nelson's Illustrated Bible Commentary and the Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties.  If you like I will purchase this book from Amazon and send it to you personally.

todangst wrote:
1) What makes you the superior translator over the professionals?

My translations are not superior. I use these things in my head called EYES and read A Hebrew dictionary. (several)  I have seven and they all have the same translation for the word valiant.  I have not retranslated anything.  Look at the passages.  One passage simply says 800,000 VALIANT soldiers.  The second passage says 1,100 ,000 soldiers. The absent of the word VALIANT is not a mistranslation, it is a reality.

todangst wrote:
2) What non-arbitrary method are you using to re-translate this passage? If you can't respond, your 'retranslation' is ad hoc.

I am using what's called an Exegetical Guide Instead using several different English  translations, an Exegetical guide will give me each word translated from Hebrew in five different dictionaries.  The Exegetical guide will then provide me a list of how that exact word was used in that passage as well as any other passage in the Bible.  From there I am given the most accurate Hebrew or Greek Reference number to seek out the the word in several other sources to find out its etymology, origin and correct part of speech.  Upon doing this, it can be determined which word was most intended to be used in the Hebrew language thus giving me an equal word in the English language.  It will also give me the tense, voice and mood of the word. The dictionary used are Strong's, Theological Wordbook for the OT, NAS Hebrew, Aramaic Dictionary, Dictionary of Biblical and Semitic Languages, and the Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon of the OT. Satisfy your answer?

todangst wrote:
What justification do you have for this claim, other than that it solves the contradiction?

Military classifications. Nelsons Illustrated Manners and Customs book on military practices of the Far Eastern culture. All soldiers were not classified as VALIANT unless they had proven themselves in battle and/or training.  This is no different from today's military classification.  Is Colin Powell a soldier or does him military ranking and track record along as service for the country afford him the luxury of being called GENERAL?

todangst wrote:
    8. (h) Joseph was sold into Egypt by Midianites (Gen. 37:36), by Ishmaelites (Gen. 39:1);
Interesting that AboutBibleProphecy.com solves this is a different fashion:


So what you do is search GOOGLE and WIKI for answers that are different than mine and post them here on the board. I would love to debate you in person. Read Judges, both names were interchangeable, (the 8th Chapter I believe)  Also simple Logic or rational thinking would also validate this claim.  Ishamael's Dad: Abraham.  Midian's Dad: Abraham.  If this were today's society, you and your brother (if you have one) would have had the same last name correct?  Even if you had different mothers your last names would have been the same had your father had two wives.  So if you did something like sell someone into slavery, it would have been the "Todangst's (or whatever you last name is) slavery roundup" However everything in the OT would lead us to notice that the family classifications were hinged on the first name so this where we names such as the Israelites (from Israel) or the Midianites (from Midian). Once again this is neither opinion nor guess, but fact.

Regarding the death of Saul...

todangst wrote:
Is it really? How do you know this? You tend to build your arguments from naked assertions. You need to justify these premises.

Its in the Bible.  1 Samuel 31:1 - 6 Read it. You and Rook are starting lose credibility in my eyes when it comes to study.  If you are going to discredit the Bible, then read it first and make your assumptions based what you read.  First and foremost get a  different translation. I'll pay to have one shipped to you. The King James Version is making you look like an idiot because you won't read any other versions.  You say why would I read another version? Because you would see that in the 400 years since the inception of the AV 1611 version, advances have been made to CORRECT any Mistranslations that were made in the version.  There are at least 50 or more translation errors and I'm okay with that because, we as humans can make mistakes. The beautiful thing about this is that we can use tools or resources to  really do some scholarly work and see exactly what was meant to be communicated in  that era.  Since you like to do Google searches, look up the history of King James and the REAL reason why the AV 1611 version was published.  The top WORD for WORD translations would be an NASB or an ESV or better yet invest an a Hebrew/Greek interlinear Bible and spend $400.00 on Bible Works. Get one of these and half your contradictions list would disappear! 

todangst wrote:
I'll stop here for now, mainly because I find this less interesting than I originally imagined... most of these contradictions are of very little importance to anyone but an inerrantist.


So this is your copout? I am uninterested.  You provided a google link to refute two of my now 34 responses and you call this a response. You also looked on the internet and never cracked a book so this counts for scholarly answers.  Ya gotta be kidding me.

I sound arrogant because to a degree I am.  I am confident that GOD can and will be Defended at all costs. This is my life. Not just arguing with some clowns on the internet, but giving the best possible effort to learn and defend what I believe in.  In no way do I mean to offend any of the posters, but if my attitude offends you, then how do you think your stance makes me feel?  Doesn't matter. I'll just keep putting up info until one of you can show me I'm wrong.  I would say the Rook is your best bet for study and his argument from the initial get go is faulty.  I'm not perfect, but I would come stronger than that.  At that point to where you can show me Christianity of the presence of God is wrong, I can denounce my religion. Since you can't.....ALL PRAISES TO THE ETERNAL LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST.  

LET ME HEAR ALL MY GOD BELEIVING FOLKS SAY YYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111 

Check out the new list everyone.  There are more DEBUNKED contradictions (This is the Second part so you don't have to search the forum.

I'll Defend God. Don't Test Me. You'll Lose


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Aren't the NASB and ESV

Aren't the NASB and ESV actually farther away from the original translations (as opposed to closer to them)?

Weren't they created to fix some of the problems found in the earlier texts?

Flame if you want - just asking. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: simple

todangst wrote:
simple theist wrote:

Of course Rook not responding to ILOVECHRIST's explanations, lowers Rook's crediabilit. No response means ILOVECHRIST's explanations are probably correct, and if they are, it means Rook didn't do enough reasurch before posting his claims. I find it more likely that Rook has not responded because he can't refute the claims. If Rook did enough reasurch to begin with, he should be able to refute the claims or go ahead and concede that he can't.

I think the whole purpose of this webiste is to make me, the theist start to think my belifs are irrational. If Rook can't refute ILOVECHRIST's claims, or chooses not to for whatever reason, I am left to believe his claims (as well as my own) are unrefutable by you.

That's irrational for two reasons.

1) Rook is busy, he's not posting anywhere. To take Rook's lack of participation as evidence of his inability to respond is an unsupported leap.

2) YOU have an epistemic duty to examine YOUR OWN beliefs. You can't simply hold to a belief just because an atheist has not refuted it for you.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/what_are_epistemic_rights_a_basic_primer_in_critical_thinking

 

 

I have examined my own beliefs and find them to be true. The site is called Rational Response Sqauad...and so far there hasn't been a response by any atheist, let alone the RRS themselves.

Rook had time to respond that he was busy. Rook made the list of contradictions to begin wiht, therefore he should already know why they are in fact contradictions and shouldn't have to look up the reason. Being a "historian" and "scholar" that Rook claims, he should have investigated the alleged contradictions before posting them. There is no way you can tell me that Rook is to busy to spend five min. responding to ILOVECHRIST's claims. Now if Rook has to research them, I would understand, but as a Scholar, I assume Rook researched them before posting them. So in the time ROok said he was busy, he could have refuted ILOVECHRIST's claims. 


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:
ILOVECHRIST wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

ILOVECHRIST wrote:
Part Two is now up. Check the forum. I will be dismantling the next set and have them ready next Tuesday.

Still waiting for you to refute Part One.

I read a lot of "translation error" excuses and a good amount of "It's OK that the writers couldn't get their stories straight" dodges (in various forms) but I've seen no refutations, let alone a dismantling.

I'm sorry... and who are you? I dont remember you posting any pertinent information to this arguement. The so called "translation errors" were brought to light being that Rook has the title "Ancient Text Expert". Being that he is an expert, it would seem that several of the Contradictions listed would have not even made the list. I see that you didn't read the post because no where does any of my study include a "we couldn't get our story straight" answer. They were all researched and not only are agreed upon by other theologians but several answers are historical in their explanantion and can be verified out side of Scriptual reference. For the sake of watsing anymore key strokes, holla at me when you bring something meaniful to the table.

I'm about the same level of nobody in particular as you. You bring your opinions, I bring mine.

My problem is you use "translation error" as so many other apologists do - you look through a bunch of books and find where someone wrote "X (the word in dispute) could mean (the meaning the apologist is looking for)" and that meaning instantly becomes THE meaning and the other possibilities are automatically incorrect.

The points you brought up about in your opening about how some writers date from certain events while others don't and that really doesn't matter is essentially absolving them and the God who supposedly inspired their writing from having their stuff together and being able to write one coherent story.

Feel free to dismiss this as not meaningful to the topic (I'm sure you will) but it doesn't change what is - you haven't refuted anything.

By the way, thank you for this quote,

"They are 2000 years apart and entirely different cultures."

That tells me that no one should ever bother living by the Bible because what's in it is obsolete and doesn't apply to modern culture.

 

MY CHALLENGE TO YOU:

 

Translate the word "Of the woman I do love" into Greek. Translate it so that your translation represents 100% of what I mean and in a way that no one will ever disagree with you. If you can do this, then you can make the claim that errors in translation are still errors.

The point is that it is irrational to claim that translations are 100% correct. The only way a translation can even come close is if the original writer makes the translation. 

 


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
I HAVE THREE TRANSLATIONS

I HAVE THREE TRANSLATIONS WHICH DO NOT USE HORSEMEN.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
I noticed that you glossed

I noticed that you glossed over my question so I ask it again. 

jcgadfly wrote:

Aren't the NASB and ESV actually farther away from the originaltexts (as opposed to closer to them)?

Weren't they created to fix some of the problems found in the earlier texts?

Flame if you want - just asking.

 Correcting - I meant "texts" and had "translations" on the brain.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
simple theist

simple theist wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
ILOVECHRIST wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

ILOVECHRIST wrote:
Part Two is now up. Check the forum. I will be dismantling the next set and have them ready next Tuesday.

Still waiting for you to refute Part One.

I read a lot of "translation error" excuses and a good amount of "It's OK that the writers couldn't get their stories straight" dodges (in various forms) but I've seen no refutations, let alone a dismantling.

I'm sorry... and who are you? I dont remember you posting any pertinent information to this arguement. The so called "translation errors" were brought to light being that Rook has the title "Ancient Text Expert". Being that he is an expert, it would seem that several of the Contradictions listed would have not even made the list. I see that you didn't read the post because no where does any of my study include a "we couldn't get our story straight" answer. They were all researched and not only are agreed upon by other theologians but several answers are historical in their explanantion and can be verified out side of Scriptual reference. For the sake of watsing anymore key strokes, holla at me when you bring something meaniful to the table.

I'm about the same level of nobody in particular as you. You bring your opinions, I bring mine.

My problem is you use "translation error" as so many other apologists do - you look through a bunch of books and find where someone wrote "X (the word in dispute) could mean (the meaning the apologist is looking for)" and that meaning instantly becomes THE meaning and the other possibilities are automatically incorrect.

The points you brought up about in your opening about how some writers date from certain events while others don't and that really doesn't matter is essentially absolving them and the God who supposedly inspired their writing from having their stuff together and being able to write one coherent story.

Feel free to dismiss this as not meaningful to the topic (I'm sure you will) but it doesn't change what is - you haven't refuted anything.

By the way, thank you for this quote,

"They are 2000 years apart and entirely different cultures."

That tells me that no one should ever bother living by the Bible because what's in it is obsolete and doesn't apply to modern culture.

 

MY CHALLENGE TO YOU:

 

Translate the word "Of the woman I do love" into Greek. Translate it so that your translation represents 100% of what I mean and in a way that no one will ever disagree with you. If you can do this, then you can make the claim that errors in translation are still errors.

The point is that it is irrational to claim that translations are 100% correct. The only way a translation can even come close is if the original writer makes the translation.

 

Actually, this get to the underlying point.

Shouldn't an omni-everything God be able to use words that his ghost writers can write down that would be free of translation error no mater who was translating it?

Or are you accepting that "the divinely inspired word of God" is simply a human construct? 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: simple

jcgadfly wrote:
simple theist wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:
ILOVECHRIST wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

ILOVECHRIST wrote:
Part Two is now up. Check the forum. I will be dismantling the next set and have them ready next Tuesday.

Still waiting for you to refute Part One.

I read a lot of "translation error" excuses and a good amount of "It's OK that the writers couldn't get their stories straight" dodges (in various forms) but I've seen no refutations, let alone a dismantling.

I'm sorry... and who are you? I dont remember you posting any pertinent information to this arguement. The so called "translation errors" were brought to light being that Rook has the title "Ancient Text Expert". Being that he is an expert, it would seem that several of the Contradictions listed would have not even made the list. I see that you didn't read the post because no where does any of my study include a "we couldn't get our story straight" answer. They were all researched and not only are agreed upon by other theologians but several answers are historical in their explanantion and can be verified out side of Scriptual reference. For the sake of watsing anymore key strokes, holla at me when you bring something meaniful to the table.

I'm about the same level of nobody in particular as you. You bring your opinions, I bring mine.

My problem is you use "translation error" as so many other apologists do - you look through a bunch of books and find where someone wrote "X (the word in dispute) could mean (the meaning the apologist is looking for)" and that meaning instantly becomes THE meaning and the other possibilities are automatically incorrect.

The points you brought up about in your opening about how some writers date from certain events while others don't and that really doesn't matter is essentially absolving them and the God who supposedly inspired their writing from having their stuff together and being able to write one coherent story.

Feel free to dismiss this as not meaningful to the topic (I'm sure you will) but it doesn't change what is - you haven't refuted anything.

By the way, thank you for this quote,

"They are 2000 years apart and entirely different cultures."

That tells me that no one should ever bother living by the Bible because what's in it is obsolete and doesn't apply to modern culture.

 

MY CHALLENGE TO YOU:

 

Translate the word "Of the woman I do love" into Greek. Translate it so that your translation represents 100% of what I mean and in a way that no one will ever disagree with you. If you can do this, then you can make the claim that errors in translation are still errors.

The point is that it is irrational to claim that translations are 100% correct. The only way a translation can even come close is if the original writer makes the translation.

 

Actually, this get to the underlying point.

Shouldn't an omni-everything God be able to use words that his ghost writers can write down that would be free of translation error no mater who was translating it?

Or are you accepting that "the divinely inspired word of God" is simply a human construct?

Omni doesn't mean God has to do anything he doesn't want to do, it only means he can. Second, there are no human languages which can be translated acurately to any other language.  

You have a brain. You have the means to read the original languages if you wanted to take the time to do so. 

 


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote: Omni

simple theist wrote:

Omni doesn't mean God has to do anything he doesn't want to do, it only means he can. Second, there are no human languages which can be translated acurately to any other language.

You have a brain. You have the means to read the original languages if you wanted to take the time to do so. 

So your god doesn't want to be clear? Makes sense; I know if I was an all loving god I'd want as many people as possible to go to hell for not believing in me.

We have no reason to want to learn the original languages for every "holy" text so we can decide which one is right. It makes more sense to say that none of them are right because an all powerful god would be able to make himself known properly rather than appearing to a specific group of people and saying "hey, spread my word around 'cause I can't seem to do it myself. Just ignore all the other people who believe in different gods for the same reasons, they're inspired by satan, who I made just to make life difficult for you. Also, don't eat all this stuff I made; it's just there to kill all the people who don't believe you. Oh, and for those of you guys who already ate some. . .er, sorry?"


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
inspectormustard

inspectormustard wrote:
simple theist wrote:

Omni doesn't mean God has to do anything he doesn't want to do, it only means he can. Second, there are no human languages which can be translated acurately to any other language.

You have a brain. You have the means to read the original languages if you wanted to take the time to do so.

So your god doesn't want to be clear? Makes sense; I know if I was an all loving god I'd want as many people as possible to go to hell for not believing in me.

We have no reason to want to learn the original languages for every "holy" text so we can decide which one is right. It makes more sense to say that none of them are right because an all powerful god would be able to make himself known properly rather than appearing to a specific group of people and saying "hey, spread my word around 'cause I can't seem to do it myself. Just ignore all the other people who believe in different gods for the same reasons, they're inspired by satan, who I made just to make life difficult for you. Also, don't eat all this stuff I made; it's just there to kill all the people who don't believe you. Oh, and for those of you guys who already ate some. . .er, sorry?"

Truth is Truth reguardless of what you believe or how much work you put into it. You may investigate religions without studing the languages they are written in. If your going to look for contradictions in a book, then you should study the original languages to make sure they are true contradictions. The bible as is, serves its purpose.  Remember if you find a contradiction between any books of the bible it simply means that 1) the bible isn't without error as believed, but the core may still be true 2) A book which shouldn't be in the bible was placed in the bible. 1 error does not make it all untrue. 


REVLyle
TheistTroll
Posts: 236
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
inspectormustard

inspectormustard wrote:
simple theist wrote:

Omni doesn't mean God has to do anything he doesn't want to do, it only means he can. Second, there are no human languages which can be translated acurately to any other language.

You have a brain. You have the means to read the original languages if you wanted to take the time to do so. 

So your god doesn't want to be clear? Makes sense; I know if I was an all loving god I'd want as many people as possible to go to hell for not believing in me.

We have no reason to want to learn the original languages for every "holy" text so we can decide which one is right. It makes more sense to say that none of them are right because an all powerful god would be able to make himself known properly rather than appearing to a specific group of people and saying "hey, spread my word around 'cause I can't seem to do it myself. Just ignore all the other people who believe in different gods for the same reasons, they're inspired by satan, who I made just to make life difficult for you. Also, don't eat all this stuff I made; it's just there to kill all the people who don't believe you. Oh, and for those of you guys who already ate some. . .er, sorry?"

God is quite clear - we are the ones who have the problems.  God created, and God said, "Do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."  Sounds pretty clear to me - what did man do - CLEARLY. . .  exactly what God said not to do.  We, mankind, ushered in the age of ambiguity.

Love is only 1 attribute of God.  You only describe a loving God.  God is not just loving.  The moral attributes of God include - goodness, love, mercy, holiness, peace, righteousness, jealousy, and wrath.  God is all of those things.  Not just 1 or 2 or 3 . . . but all. 

God never said . . . "spread my word around 'cause I can't seem to do it myself."  God never said "ignore all the other people who believe in different gods" (I can certainly give you scripture references that say EXACTLY the opposite of what you have just stated.)

Finally, God certainly did not say ". . . er, sorry?"  God said, "Forgive them, for they know not what they do."  Again, the exact opposite of what you have stated.

Your posts simply show contempt for God, rather than a desire to discover the truth in God's word.  Let me know if I can help you know better what the Bible has to say. (one of the reasons I became a minister)

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.


Rich_Rodriguez
RRS Academy AdminSuperfan
Rich_Rodriguez's picture
Posts: 30
Joined: 2006-08-11
User is offlineOffline
Debate

To (I love Christ):

 

Would you be interested in debating me on the existence of god? A live debate is what I am proposing. I will answer your silly nursery ryhme also so you learn a thing or two about science.

We can do it on Stickam or any other mechanism you have in mind. I want a live debate though. I dont want to give you the opportunity to cut and paste like others have done in the past.

So I am offically calling you out Mr. Fundy, can you step up or will you have to step off?

 


irrespective
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: I noticed

jcgadfly wrote:

I noticed that you glossed over my question so I ask it again. 

jcgadfly wrote:

Aren't the NASB and ESV actually farther away from the originaltexts (as opposed to closer to them)?

Weren't they created to fix some of the problems found in the earlier texts?

Flame if you want - just asking.

 Correcting - I meant "texts" and had "translations" on the brain.

 

Actually the NASB and ESV are both known for a very literal translation philosophy...almost to a fault.


Master Jedi Dan
Master Jedi Dan's picture
Posts: 289
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
Rich_Rodriguez wrote: To

Rich_Rodriguez wrote:

To (I love Christ):

 

Would you be interested in debating me on the existence of god? A live debate is what I am proposing. I will answer your silly nursery ryhme also so you learn a thing or two about science.

We can do it on Stickam or any other mechanism you have in mind. I want a live debate though. I dont want to give you the opportunity to cut and paste like others have done in the past.

So I am offically calling you out Mr. Fundy, can you step up or will you have to step off?

 

I hate to say this, but the OP left a while ago...If I had to guess, he's not around anymore.

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.


ILOVECHRIST
Theist
ILOVECHRIST's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-05-19
User is offlineOffline
OK after a two month hiatus I am back

I have been gone for almost three months.  Taking a break from my work and just enjoying life and serving God as all Christians should try to do everyday.   Its been a 32 weeks according to my member account and I have yet to hear from Rook.  Well he did say he was going to get back to me but nothing yet.  Rich Rodriguez wants to debate me on the existence of God, well I am here whenever you want to do this.

 

 

I'll Defend God. Don't Test Me. You'll Lose


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
(Regarding the

Just thought I'd throw another one out there: 

 

(Jesus before Pilate, Jesus engages Pilate in an extended dialog)

"Pilate then went back inside the palace and asked him "Are you the King of the Jews?

"Is that your own idea" Jesus asked "or did others talk to you about me?"

"Am I a Jew ?" Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?"

Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."

"You are a king then!" said Pilate.

"Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am king. In fact, for this reason I was born,and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Every one on the side of truth listens to me." John 18: 33-37

(Contrast with Jesus before Pilate who, to the amazement of onlookers, refuses to answer a single query.)

Then Pilate asked him "Don't you hear the testimony they are bringing against you?" But Jesus made no reply, not even to a single charge-to the great amazement of the governer. Matthew 27: 13-14

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Master Jedi Dan
Master Jedi Dan's picture
Posts: 289
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Just thought I'd

Quote:

Just thought I'd throw another one out there: 

 

(Jesus before Pilate, Jesus engages Pilate in an extended dialog)

"Pilate then went back inside the palace and asked him "Are you the King of the Jews?

"Is that your own idea" Jesus asked "or did others talk to you about me?"

"Am I a Jew ?" Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?"

Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."

"You are a king then!" said Pilate.

"Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am king. In fact, for this reason I was born,and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Every one on the side of truth listens to me." John 18: 33-37

(Contrast with Jesus before Pilate who, to the amazement of onlookers, refuses to answer a single query.)

Then Pilate asked him "Don't you hear the testimony they are bringing against you?" But Jesus made no reply, not even to a single charge-to the great amazement of the governer. Matthew 27: 13-14

I don't really see the contradiction here - it looks like Jesus is just testing Pilate.

BTW, you should pick a different picture.  Animated gifs like yours give people like me headaches after looking at them for 10 seconds, lol. 

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Master Jedi Dan

Master Jedi Dan wrote:

Quote:

Just thought I'd throw another one out there:

 

(Jesus before Pilate, Jesus engages Pilate in an extended dialog)

"Pilate then went back inside the palace and asked him "Are you the King of the Jews?

"Is that your own idea" Jesus asked "or did others talk to you about me?"

"Am I a Jew ?" Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?"

Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."

"You are a king then!" said Pilate.

"Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am king. In fact, for this reason I was born,and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Every one on the side of truth listens to me." John 18: 33-37

(Contrast with Jesus before Pilate who, to the amazement of onlookers, refuses to answer a single query.)

Then Pilate asked him "Don't you hear the testimony they are bringing against you?" But Jesus made no reply, not even to a single charge-to the great amazement of the governer. Matthew 27: 13-14

I don't really see the contradiction here - it looks like Jesus is just testing Pilate.

BTW, you should pick a different picture. Animated gifs like yours give people like me headaches after looking at them for 10 seconds, lol.

Could you please harmonize the apparently differing aspects of the two passages using only scriptual / textual references ?

ps, I have tried to change my avatar but the "edit" function is either slow to respond or is not functioning at all.

 

 

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
re: Mods deleted

re: Mods deleted avatar.

Sorry but I tried to change the avatar as soon as I was notified by my fellow forum member ( see my post above )

The edit function failed to respond. It still does not function.

Was it disabled by mods ? ....what's going on ? Cry

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Master Jedi Dan
Master Jedi Dan's picture
Posts: 289
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Could you please harmonize the apparently differing aspects of the two passages using only scriptual / textual references ?

Ah, I see.  I failed to see the argument before.  Nevermind, the error is clear now, both in my former logic and the passages.  BTW, thanks for the avatar change.  Much better concentration now. 

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.


Vermilion
Vermilion's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
-Is this not the most

-Is this not the most ingorant shit you've ever heard?

ILOVECHRIST wrote:

We have a Sun that appears to be YELLOW or ORANGE right?
That creates a sky that is BLUE
This sky has clouds in that can be WHITE or GREY
These clouds produce raindrops that are CLEAR
AND they rain on dirt that is BROWN

As if color needs to transfer to everything it touches? This is like saying "How come when I wear a red sweater, my skin doesn't become red?"

The fact that it's difficult for the average person to understand why our world shows up in the colors it does, makes no case against it being true. I'm sure you can get on askjeeves.com or a 5th grade science book and find an answer why the sky is blue. The answer would be the best answer that scientists currently have for the question.

YES, we atheists also admit that there are many things we don't understand... the difference is, we look to science to CONSTANTLY investigate these things, and consistenly update our knowledge for the best current answer. Your 'God' idea  however, is not only old, but never changes it's mind... The idea of assuming that since the sky is blue and the grass is green means there is a god who made it, is fucking ridiculous


Morgan (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Lost in translation?

I'm surprised I don't hear this question posed more often:  If God is all-powerful, creates life, started the universe, and continues to control every single atom in it, then why can't he find a competent translator for his own book?  I mean, people's souls depend on the accuracy of his divine word, why can't he find someone to write out his will exactly like he wants it?  If I were him, I'd do it myself.  I really can't believe how many times I've heard that excuse, that the contradictions we're seeing are simply translation errors.  It's outrageous.


Flagg
Flagg's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2008-10-07
User is offlineOffline
Morgan wrote:I'm surprised I

Morgan wrote:

I'm surprised I don't hear this question posed more often:  If God is all-powerful, creates life, started the universe, and continues to control every single atom in it, then why can't he find a competent translator for his own book?  I mean, people's souls depend on the accuracy of his divine word, why can't he find someone to write out his will exactly like he wants it?  If I were him, I'd do it myself.  I really can't believe how many times I've heard that excuse, that the contradictions we're seeing are simply translation errors.  It's outrageous.

It makes sure the reprobates stay reprobate, unless they hear the truth and believe. See Matthew 13. 

"When the Lord Jesus Christ in His own words describes in some little detail that great drama that's the most important event in all human history, time, and eternity - this event, the great general judgment - the Lord Jesus Christ, then shall He say unto them on His right hand, 'Come ye blessed of My Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world, for when you had opportunity at one of Billy Graham's campaigns you went forward and took good ol' Jesus as your very own personal savior.' NO! GET REAL!" - Fred Phelps


proofreader
Posts: 4
Joined: 2009-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Inerrancy of the Perfect Bible

If the Bible is "perfect" and truthful, how did Moses manage to write about his own death and burial?

TPaine


HUH? (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
WHATTT???

Wow, these are some of the most lamist excuses for not believing the Bible. If your not going to believe then just don't believe. What? you have to have company with you? You can't just do it on your own little boy? Some of those "contridictions" would be raised by a 2nd grader. You guys need to get out of mommas basement, get off the computor and be REAL men for a change (get a job and actually fund your own selves instead of being deabeats living off your parents and the goverment. (you know this is true!!) What a bunch of little boys everyone of you are. I bet your momma has to change yopur diabiees huh??? I bet non of you have ever put in a hard days work at anything, leeches on society, thats YOU! And if yopu dont like what I said then look me up and take it up with me!!! BET YOU WONT DO IT


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7578
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
HUH? wrote:Wow, these are

HUH? wrote:

Wow, these are some of the most lamist excuses for not believing the Bible. If your not going to believe then just don't believe. What? you have to have company with you? You can't just do it on your own little boy?

Do Christians go to an empty church? 

 

Quote:
 Some of those "contridictions" would be raised by a 2nd grader.

Exactly, the bible is so dumb a second grader can pick it apart as long as his parents aren't brainwashing him.

 

Quote:
You guys need to get out of mommas basement, get off the computor and be REAL men for a change (get a job and actually fund your own selves instead of being deabeats living off your parents and the goverment. (you know this is true!!) 

I live in a house that's too big for me, by myself, with a full time job, and you do what?  Try to determine whether you're going to go to computer lab or homework room for your free period?

 

Quote:
What a bunch of little boys everyone of you are. I bet your momma has to change yopur diabiees huh???

Yes, whenever we read posts like yours we shit ourselves because of how scared we are to be on the same planet with people like you.  Then our momma comes down and changes our diabiees.

 

Quote:
I bet non of you have ever put in a hard days work at anything, leeches on society, thats YOU!

I worked 16-24 hours a day when I did RRS full time, now I work 8 hours a day at a real job and come home to laugh at idiots like you on the side.

 

Quote:
And if yopu dont like what I said then look me up and take it up with me!!! BET YOU WONT DO IT

I don't like it, however you left me nothing to look you up by.  I accept your challenge, I'll do it, go ahead and post your address, name, and phone number. 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


lpetrich
lpetrich's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
I think that what's

I think that what's especially interesting is what contradictions and discrepancies can tell us about how the Bible got put together.

For instance, Jesus Christ's genealogies in Matthew and Luke look like they had been separate inventions; both "Matthew" and "Luke" agreed that he ought to be a descendant of King David, so they filled in the blanks -- and filled them with separate inventions. However, they also claim that Joseph was reproductively cuckolded by the Holy Spirit.