What are the best Biblical textual errors?

Edison Trent
Theist
Edison Trent's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-11-10
User is offlineOffline
What are the best Biblical textual errors?

I've seen Rook's nice, long, list of Biblical errors and contradicitons, but I feel that taking the list on would take too much of my time unless I was able to have a lot of people working with me.  So what are the most striking, the worst of the worst, errors the Bible has?


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Got a new twist or are you

Got a new twist or are you just going to reintroduce the "translation error" and the "you're taking it out of context" arguments?

"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


JeremiahSmith
Posts: 361
Joined: 2006-11-25
User is offlineOffline
Edison Trent wrote: I've

Edison Trent wrote:
I've seen Rook's nice, long, list of Biblical errors and contradicitons, but I feel that taking the list on would take too much of my time unless I was able to have a lot of people working with me. So what are the most striking, the worst of the worst, errors the Bible has?

If you're planning to refute Rook's list of verses, why do you need our help? Just pick out the verses that you feel need refutation the most: the errors where you feel Rook has made the biggest mistakes in interpretation, the errors you feel are used too often by atheists, the errors you can most easily refute, or whatever. Do a little legwork, man.

Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.


Edison Trent
Theist
Edison Trent's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-11-10
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: Got a new

jcgadfly wrote:

Got a new twist or are you just going to reintroduce the "translation error" and the "you're taking it out of context" arguments?

No, I just feel like picking the list apart piece by piece.  Showing Rook that he needs to do some more research, that's all.

JeremiahSmith wrote:

If you're planning to refute Rook's list of verses, why do you need our help? Just pick out the verses that you feel need refutation the most: the errors where you feel Rook has made the biggest mistakes in interpretation, the errors you feel are used too often by atheists, the errors you can most easily refute, or whatever. Do a little legwork, man.

I've been looking for a while, and it doesn't really seem like there are any that stand out shouting "look at me! look at me!"  What I'm saying is that it doesn't seem as though we have any proven errors in the Bible, and I wondered if anyone here had a favorite that never failed to convince people that the Bible is in fact erroneous.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Edison Trent wrote: No, I

Edison Trent wrote:

No, I just feel like picking the list apart piece by piece. Showing Rook that he needs to do some more research, that's all.

Do it then.

 Mind you, you're not the first to attempt this:  http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/rook_hawkins/biblical_errancy/8203

 

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


gregfl
Posts: 170
Joined: 2006-04-29
User is offlineOffline
Hopefully you have



Hopefully you have something substantial. So far all apologetic defenses of biblical passages are downright silly. As an example, the downright stupid attempt to justify the biblical error of "rabbits chewing their cud" by suggesting that a cow regurgitating partially digested food from the stomach and chewing it, and a rabbit  excreting fecal pellets and then swallowing them whole.   Clearly these are two entirely different things.  This is the level of the explanations I have seen, and frankly they make the apologists attempting to comport the contradictions look real foolish.

 

So, here's to hoping you can actually bring something substantial and not laughable when you attempt to explain the bible's contradictions.

 

 

 

 


Edison Trent
Theist
Edison Trent's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-11-10
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote: Edison

zarathustra wrote:
Edison Trent wrote:

No, I just feel like picking the list apart piece by piece. Showing Rook that he needs to do some more research, that's all.

Do it then.

Mind you, you're not the first to attempt this: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/rook_hawkins/biblical_errancy/8203

 

Yes, I saw ILOVECHRIST's attempt at doing it.  He left, I think it was because he thought it would be too arduous of a task. 


Cernunnos
Cernunnos's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Edison, I eagerly await to

Edison, I eagerly await to see if the lightbulb is above your head or up your own arse.


Edison Trent
Theist
Edison Trent's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-11-10
User is offlineOffline
Cernunnos wrote: Edison, I

Cernunnos wrote:
Edison, I eagerly await to see if the lightbulb is above your head or up your own arse.

ROFL.  We shall see then, we shall see. 


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Edison, I wouldn't worry

Edison, I wouldn't worry about aplogetics (defense of the faith) beyond enough to satisfy yourself and relevant objections.

Many of the people here object to the Bible because they reject God.  No amount of logical analysis will satisfy them.

That is because we cannot stand above God and judge Him (and His Word).  We will never get the right answer that way.

Such a stand always arrives with ourselves at the top.

I read the Bible straight through like this.  It didn't make a whole lot of sense.  It was only when I allowed for the possibility that God says what He means that I could make sense of things. 


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
nedbrek wrote: Many of the

nedbrek wrote:

Many of the people here object to the Bible because they reject God. No amount of logical analysis will satisfy them.

 

While risking stepping into dead-horse-beating territory, we do not "reject God" or as is also brought up regularly: "hate God."   This would assume that we know there "actually" is a god, yet we have just elected to "turn away" or disobey the being.  

We disbelieve in gods, and especially this one, based on the lack of credible evidence to support its existence. We've rejected your concept that this god is really there, so anything after that is extraneous.   So from there we cannot like, dislike, obey, disobey, hate, love or take any action toward "it."

And it's indeed our  "amount of logical analysis" that satisfies our position.  (or more specifically mine, since I do not speak on behalf of all the individuals here)

 

Also, on the original topic of mistranslations, added text, mixed messages in the bible, etc.  I'd recommend reading Hector Avalos' book "The End of Biblical Studies" as it contains quite a lot of info on this.  


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Quote: No amount of logical

Quote:
No amount of logical analysis will satisfy them.

You know people who say that about us tend to be like that themselves.

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Edison Trent wrote: I've

Edison Trent wrote:

I've been looking for a while, and it doesn't really seem like there are any that stand out shouting "look at me! look at me!" What I'm saying is that it doesn't seem as though we have any proven errors in the Bible, and I wondered if anyone here had a favorite that never failed to convince people that the Bible is in fact erroneous.

You mean to tell me that the bible doesn't seem to have any proved errors?  You mean that it doesn't contain numerous contradictions among the myriad other 'errors' that are easily identifiable?

I'm confused as to why you have an interest in the bible as such anyway, since I recall you referring to yourself as a deist.  If you are a deist, surely you could stand to admit to the 'errors' the bible contains rather than to pretend they don't exist, or to, as you do, purport that you just don't see them.  Do you have a special interest in proving the veracity and infallibility of the bible?  I think you'll find yourself to be incapable of doing either in any case, but please, do try.

As a side note, I've been following your posts and you're coming off as inconsistent and ignorant as many of the theists who've visited here recently.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Ophios wrote: Quote: No

Ophios wrote:

Quote:
No amount of logical analysis will satisfy them.

You know people who say that about us tend to be like that themselves.

I often have logical, rational discussions with many people in this forum.  If you are aware of a lapse on my part, I will correct it.


Eight Foot Manchild
Eight Foot Manchild's picture
Posts: 144
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
nedbrek wrote: Many of the

nedbrek wrote:

Many of the people here object to the Bible because they reject God.

-There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of Yahweh, so I don't believe in him

-Even if I thought Yahweh existed, I wouldn't worship him

 

These are two entirely separate points. I never get them confused. It seems you have.


Edison Trent
Theist
Edison Trent's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-11-10
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote: I'm

Thomathy wrote:

I'm confused as to why you have an interest in the bible as such anyway, since I recall you referring to yourself as a deist.

Like I said in my intro, I'm attempting to prove the Bible to myself.  Go read it again if you missed that part.

Quote:

As a side note, I've been following your posts and you're coming off as inconsistent and ignorant as many of the theists who've visited here recently.

Thanks for the update Eye-wink


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
That's right! Thanks. I

That's right! Thanks. I read it, but apparently didn't remember it. I distinctly remember wondering why anyone would wish to do that. Why have you chosen the bible? Why not the Talmud or the Vedas? (Don't mean to thread-jack, I'm serious about the questions.) Oh, and could you answer the other questions I did ask? You cleared up my confusion, but I asked three rather distinct questions.

It's just my personal observation. Apparently, I'm not the only person making the observation.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Edison Trent
Theist
Edison Trent's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-11-10
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote: You mean

Thomathy wrote:

You mean to tell me that the bible doesn't seem to have any proved errors?  You mean that it doesn't contain numerous contradictions among the myriad other 'errors' that are easily identifiable?

First of all, I don't think it necessarily has any 'proved' errors.  That was kind of what I was trying to ask people here, I've seen all the stuff on Rook's list and I've read through parts of Skeptic's Annotated Bible but I wondered if there were any that were rock-solid, no doubt about it.  There are at first glance passages that seem to be erroneous, but it seems to me that with a good concordance and some common sense one can figure them out.

Thomathy wrote:

Do you have a special interest in proving the veracity and infallibility of the bible?

I do... it seems that from recent personal experience God has tried to reveal to me that he is indeed the God of the Bible.  I'm not talking about a "revelation" or something spiritual, but about events that have happened in my life and someone else's recently.

Thomathy wrote:

Why have you chosen the bible? Why not the Talmud or the Vedas? (Don't mean to thread-jack, I'm serious about the questions.)

The Bible seems more likely to me.  I can say with confidence that the Jews are wrong in their beliefs, it was predicted that after the Messiah came the temple would be destroyed, this happened in 70 A.D., so either Jesus was the Jews' Messiah or there is none.  Aside from that, most other religions seem to have been created by people who have something to gain.  If I'm proven wrong about the Bible, then I'll move on to a different religion. 


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Edison Trent

Edison Trent wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

You mean to tell me that the bible doesn't seem to have any proved errors? You mean that it doesn't contain numerous contradictions among the myriad other 'errors' that are easily identifiable?

First of all, I don't think it necessarily has any 'proved' errors. That was kind of what I was trying to ask people here, I've seen all the stuff on Rook's list and I've read through parts of Skeptic's Annotated Bible but I wondered if there were any that were rock-solid, no doubt about it. There are at first glance passages that seem to be erroneous, but it seems to me that with a good concordance and some common sense one can figure them out.

Thomathy wrote:

Do you have a special interest in proving the veracity and infallibility of the bible?

I do... it seems that from recent personal experience God has tried to reveal to me that he is indeed the God of the Bible. I'm not talking about a "revelation" or something spiritual, but about events that have happened in my life and someone else's recently.

Thomathy wrote:

Why have you chosen the bible? Why not the Talmud or the Vedas? (Don't mean to thread-jack, I'm serious about the questions.)

The Bible seems more likely to me. I can say with confidence that the Jews are wrong in their beliefs, it was predicted that after the Messiah came the temple would be destroyed, this happened in 70 A.D., so either Jesus was the Jews' Messiah or there is none. Aside from that, most other religions seem to have been created by people who have something to gain. If I'm proven wrong about the Bible, then I'll move on to a different religion.

I'm not responding to you anymore. 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Edison Trent
Theist
Edison Trent's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-11-10
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote: I'm not

Thomathy wrote:

I'm not responding to you anymore.

Ok, whatever.  I never asked you to.  I'm just here for debate with whomever wants it.  If you want to be that way and say I'm too stupid to debate, then fine, I don't give a damn for your opinion.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote: I'm not


Thomathy wrote:

I'm not responding to you anymore.

i laughed my ass off when i read that.


Orangustang
Orangustang's picture
Posts: 33
Joined: 2007-11-09
User is offlineOffline
stuntgibbon wrote: We

stuntgibbon wrote:

We disbelieve in gods, and especially this one, based on the lack of credible evidence to support its existence. We've rejected your concept that this god is really there, so anything after that is extraneous. So from there we cannot like, dislike, obey, disobey, hate, love or take any action toward "it."

I don't know. I really like unicorns but I hate leprechauns. As it so happens, though, I have no feelings one way or the other toward God.

The great tragedy of Science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.
- Thomas H. Huxley

When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad, and that is my religion.
- Abraham Lincoln


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy and Edison Trent

Thomathy and Edison Trent wrote:

Why have you chosen the bible? Why not the Talmud or the Vedas? (Don't mean to thread-jack, I'm serious about the questions.)

The Bible seems more likely to me.  I can say with confidence that the Jews are wrong in their beliefs, it was predicted that after the Messiah came the temple would be destroyed, this happened in 70 A.D., so either Jesus was the Jews' Messiah or there is none.  Aside from that, most other religions seem to have been created by people who have something to gain.  If I'm proven wrong about the Bible, then I'll move on to a different religion.

Or the writers of the Gospels went back through the OT and made the prophecies connect to the character they created.

The decades between the temple's destruction and when Jesus supposedly lived doesn't help you either. No one know how many Messiah claimants showed up in the interim.  

"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


nullusdeus
SuperfanBronze Member
nullusdeus's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-02-15
User is offlineOffline
nedbrek wrote: I read the

nedbrek wrote:

I read the Bible straight through like this. It didn't make a whole lot of sense. It was only when I allowed for the possibility that God says what He means that I could make sense of things.

Of course it didn't make any sense! It was written by ignorant, superstitious men.


I If indeed, you believe the bible is the inerrant word of God then ALL of the scripture is to be accepted as gospel. Therefore; YOU are not God to decide what verses of the bible are going to be taken out of context for what purpose.

 

Miracles don't exist. "Miracle" is a word given to a preposterous event that a theist considers dogmatically advantageous. Def. - Ecclesiastical sensationalism.


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Hey, Edison, I'll play the

Hey, Edison, I'll play the "let's explain away Bible contradictions" game with you.  To save time, I'll do your side of the conversation too:

Me: The Bible says X.  We know for a fact that this is incorrect/impossible.

You: Aha, but if you look at the context/original language/inside diameter of the vessel, you'll find what the bible is actually saying is X+1.  Also this apologist Web site says that +1 was common in those days.

Me: Hey, you can't just add +1 like that.

You: You're being too literal.  When you allow the Holy Spirit to flow through you and read the Bible in the Godly sense, the +1 is clearly there.

Me: There's no evidence for +1.

You: I clearly see the evidence for +1.

Me: grrrr

You: grrr

The End

My question, as usual, is why a document that is supposed to be the most important information in the history of the universe has anything in it that even *resembles* a contradiction or error.  Why can't God make a perfect document by fiat?  There's a simpler explanation for those contradictions. 

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


Edison Trent
Theist
Edison Trent's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-11-10
User is offlineOffline
Alright Textom, I'll bite

Alright Textom, I'll bite the bait.  I'm not going to say you need the Holy Spirit in order to understand the Bible, because that reasoning eventually becomes circular.  What I don't get is why people can't see that the Bible was written in the context of 2000 years ago at the earliest, it wasn't written now.  It was consistent with the author's time and setting, not today's time and setting.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Edison Trent wrote: Alright

Edison Trent wrote:
Alright Textom, I'll bite the bait. I'm not going to say you need the Holy Spirit in order to understand the Bible, because that reasoning eventually becomes circular.

"Eventually"?   Your reasoning's done been circular. 

Edison Trent wrote:
What I don't get is why people can't see that the Bible was written in the context of 2000 years ago at the earliest, it wasn't written now. It was consistent with the author's time and setting, not today's time and setting.

Agreed.  Which is the best reason for chucking it in the trash.  In today's time and setting, we no longer need fairy tales to get by. 

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Edison Trent wrote: Alright

Edison Trent wrote:
Alright Textom, I'll bite the bait. I'm not going to say you need the Holy Spirit in order to understand the Bible, because that reasoning eventually becomes circular. What I don't get is why people can't see that the Bible was written in the context of 2000 years ago at the earliest, it wasn't written now. It was consistent with the author's time and setting, not today's time and setting.

So by this logic (in a rephrase of Zarasthura's post) we can disregard some parts of the Bible if they aren't consistent with our time and setting?

What reliable standard of "consistent with our time" can be defined? Isn't that a matter of opinion?  What about the following arguments based on this reasoning:

Holy Argument 1: People drank wine in biblical times because the water was dirty.  Now we have technology that gives us clean water, so "take a little wine for your stomach" is not applicable anymore (we used to get this one in Baptist Sunday school).

 Unholy Argument 1: Premarital sex (fornication) was prohibited in the Bible because it could lead to unwanted pregnancies.  Now we have technology that prevents unwanted pregnancies, so the prohibition against fornication in the Bible is not applicable anymore (the Sunday school teacher didn't have an answer for this one).

 Holy Argument 2: The Bible says the earth was created about 6K years ago (barring a possible long lag between Gen 2 & 3).  This is just a misperception of the guys who were alive at that time; science shows us that this conclusion was wrong.

Unholy Argument 2: The Bible says sinful people go to Hell (actually there's a good argument that says it doesn't but we'll pretend).   This is just a misperception of the guys who were alive at that time; science shows us that this conclusion was wrong.

Holy Argument 3: The Bible says the value of Pi is 3.  Given what we know about the physical world, we know this is impossible.  The Bible guys didn't know enough about math and made a mistake.

Unholy Argument 3: The Bible says Jesus rose from the dead in 3 days.  Given what we know about the physical world, we know this is impossible.  The bible guys didn't know enough about biology and made a mistake.

I could go on, but I'll stop. 

The Bible literalists have the only consistent argument that doesn't open the door to any kind of random interpretation that anybody wants to make, and they openly acknowledge it.  Either the Bible is 100% inerrant and literally true, or it is 100% completely questionable.  The only way to use the Bible as a source of absolute authority is for it to have absolute inerrant internal consistency.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


WillieBop
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:   As a

Thomathy wrote:
 

As a side note, I've been following your posts and you're coming off as inconsistent and ignorant as many of the theists who've visited here recently.

 

Then he should fit right in. 


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
I don't see why you are

I don't see why you are pussyfooting around this. If you want to refute textual errors then why not refute the big list that is there starting from the first? You say it's because it will be a big task, yet, you're looking for the best, as if they have a weak foundation.

Start from the first and end at the last, that is, if you want to be consistant.

P.S. You can't prove the Bible to yourself. It's like proving that Santa Claus is real. It's inconsistant with itself and the facts.


Edison Trent
Theist
Edison Trent's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-11-10
User is offlineOffline
CrimsonEdge wrote: I don't

CrimsonEdge wrote:

I don't see why you are pussyfooting around this. If you want to refute textual errors then why not refute the big list that is there starting from the first? You say it's because it will be a big task, yet, you're looking for the best, as if they have a weak foundation.

Start from the first and end at the last, that is, if you want to be consistant.

P.S. You can't prove the Bible to yourself. It's like proving that Santa Claus is real. It's inconsistant with itself and the facts.

Sure then.  I'll do my best to debunk them all.  It will take a while, so don't go knocking on my door asking me how it's going.  When I'm done I'll post them.


Teknison
Teknison's picture
Posts: 23
Joined: 2007-11-05
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Sure then.  I'll

Quote:
Sure then.  I'll do my best to debunk them all.  It will take a while, so don't go knocking on my door asking me how it's going.  When I'm done I'll post them. 

Theres better things to do with your time honestly. Are you really so arrogant as to think that you have an argument better than the theist before you? That your not not going to constently say: translation error! AHA! here is what the bible really was trying to say!

Inserting some kind of rationalization based on your modified translation of the bible is not really proving anything.

hypotheticly speaking, suppose the bible were without error, what would it prove other than it did not have errors? Instead of rationalizing stupid errors that are obviously there, rationalize HOSEA 9:11-16 (New Living Translation) where Hosea is delivering a message from god explaining Israel's punishment for changing their beliefs. How can you justify a god who claims "I will slaughter their beloved children"? out of hate?


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Edison Trent

Edison Trent wrote:

Sure then. I'll do my best to debunk them all. It will take a while, so don't go knocking on my door asking me how it's going. When I'm done I'll post them.

Have at it. If at any time you want to make sure you're not employing any fallacies (equivocation, circular reasoning, ad ignorantium), don't hesitate to ask for help. Will certainly make for a more rewarding discussion when (and if) you do finish.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Edison Trent wrote: Sure

Edison Trent wrote:
Sure then. I'll do my best to debunk them all. It will take a while, so don't go knocking on my door asking me how it's going. When I'm done I'll post them.

Why don't you, first, start with a small group of them. Say, the first 10. Debunk them and send them in for peer review (with us being your peers). Then, we can help you point out any fallacies or errors. 


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
nullusdeus wrote: I If

nullusdeus wrote:

I If indeed, you believe the bible is the inerrant word of God then ALL of the scripture is to be accepted as gospel. Therefore; YOU are not God to decide what verses of the bible are going to be taken out of context for what purpose.

Yes, I accept all of the Bibleas the Word of God.  I don't want to take anything out of context, which is why I practice systematic theology and proper hermaneutics.


triften
atheist
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
nedbrek wrote: Yes, I

nedbrek wrote:

Yes, I accept all of the Bibleas the Word of God. I don't want to take anything out of context, which is why I practice systematic theology and proper hermaneutics.

"Proper" hermeneutics? How do you know you have the "proper" way of interpreting things?  If you've got some amazing method of interpreting things without incorporating your own bias, I'd love to hear about it.


JeremiahSmith
Posts: 361
Joined: 2006-11-25
User is offlineOffline
triften wrote: "Proper"

triften wrote:
"Proper" hermeneutics? How do you know you have the "proper" way of interpreting things? If you've got some amazing method of interpreting things without incorporating your own bias, I'd love to hear about it.

He knows he has the proper way of interpreting things when his church superiors agree with his interpretation. He's not incorporating his own bias, he's incorporating the church's bias. It's totally different. 

Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
nedbrek wrote: Yes, I

nedbrek wrote:
Yes, I accept all of the Bibleas the Word of God. I don't want to take anything out of context, which is why I practice systematic theology and proper hermaneutics.

So, please, clear some things up for me.

What order did God create everything?

Was he pleased with his creation? 

Do you answer a fool? 

Is anger a sin? 

How many languages where there before the towers of Babel? 

Who bears the guilt? Everyone or the guilty? 

Shall the righteous live or die? 

Does God change his mind?

Does God stand or sit to judge? 

Is god Omnipotent? Why is his weakness steel chariots?

Who inflicts sickness?

Who inspired David to take the census?

Did David sin in taking the census?

How many gods are there?

Is Satan a God of this world?

Who causes unbelief? Satan, Jesus, or God?

What should I do with my swords?

Was Jesus God incarnate or a man chosen by God?

Will Jesus judge me? What about God?

Finally, should I bear others burdens or not?

Clear this up for me, please. I've been having a hard time figuring out which parts to ignore. 


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
I use the historical,

I use the historical, grammatical hermeneutic. Fancy words for a plain reading, as it would of been understood by the people addressed.

CrimsonEdge wrote:
So, please, clear some things up for me.

Here we go!

CrimsonEdge wrote:
What order did God create everything?

Genesis 1: Universe at the beginning (v1), I believe that probably included the sun. v2 - switch to earth's surface. Solar fusion initates, 500 seconds later v3. Next day (v5). Atmospheric separation and settling, possible formation of the "vapor canopy". Next day (v8). Dry land, probably a single continent, and plants. Next day (v13). Atmosphere clears (sun, moon, and stars become visible). Next day (v19). Sea life and birds. Probably only reptiles and fish (not sea mammals). Probably not farm fowl (day 6, chapter 2). Next day (v23). Land animals. Adam. The procession for Adam in chapter 2 was likely limited to farm animals. Eve. Chapter 2 is a more detailed account of day 6, with a human focus.

Note that this timeline works for literal days or day/age.

CrimsonEdge wrote:
Was he pleased with his creation?

Yes (v1:31)

CrimsonEdge wrote:
Do you answer a fool?

Answer a fool according to his folly to reveal to a third party that he is, indeed, a fool.

Do not answer a fool if you are just wasting your time.

CrimsonEdge wrote:
Is anger a sin?

Almost certainly. It must be justifiable and directed correctly.

CrimsonEdge wrote:
How many languages where there before the towers of Babel?

One.

CrimsonEdge wrote:
Who bears the guilt? Everyone or the guilty?

God will only hold the guilty to blame. The consequences affect many more.

CrimsonEdge wrote:
Shall the righteous live or die?

Everyone sins, the reward of sin is death. Everyone dies. Some are declared righteous by God. The righteous will have eternal life after death.

CrimsonEdge wrote:
Does God change his mind?

Only with regard to punishment. God may promise punishment (Jonah 3:4 - "Ninevah shall be overthrown" ), but relent in the face of our repentence (Jonah 3:10). Of course, Ninevah was eventually overthown...

CrimsonEdge wrote:
Does God stand or sit to judge?

Generally, you see we are standing and He is sitting. What is the verse? It may be God is "positioned above us" (a moral or authoritative position) which may be translated "stand".

CrimsonEdge wrote:
Is god Omnipotent? Why is his weakness steel chariots?

In Judges 1:19, it was Judah who encountered difficulty with the chariots. The exact reason for their difficulty is not given.

CrimsonEdge wrote:
Who inflicts sickness?

God withholds His mercy, and we get sick. You can allude to "God inflicting sickness", but properly, sickness is a circumstance of the fallen world.

CrimsonEdge wrote:
Who inspired David to take the census?

God gave Satan permission to influence David (see Job).

CrimsonEdge wrote:
Did David sin in taking the census?

Yes.

CrimsonEdge wrote:
How many gods are there?

One, existing in three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). The gods of human imagination are sometimes spoken of metaphorically as being gods that are not like God.

CrimsonEdge wrote:
Is Satan a God of this world?

Yes. Little 'g'. God has permitted Satan to have power for a while (because we are complicit).

CrimsonEdge wrote:
Who causes unbelief? Satan, Jesus, or God?

The causes are many Smiling Satan may snatch the Word from your heart. I'm not aware of any cases where Jesus caused unbelief... Ultimately, God allows for unbelief.

CrimsonEdge wrote:
What should I do with my swords?

Jesus wanted one or two swords present at His arrest to show that there was to be no armed rebellion.

CrimsonEdge wrote:
Was Jesus God incarnate or a man chosen by God?

God incarnate.

CrimsonEdge wrote:
Will Jesus judge me? What about God?

Authority lies with God. God the Father has granted the authority to Jesus. Jesus honors the Father's decisions regarding who is chosen.

CrimsonEdge wrote:
Finally, should I bear others burdens or not?

Generally everyone should bear their own burden. If you see another in need, you should be willing to bear their burden. Or if you are not heavily burdened yourself, and can lighten another's load.

CrimsonEdge wrote:
Clear this up for me, please. I've been having a hard time figuring out which parts to ignore.

Smiling

There are no hard and fast rules. The Bible is about principles, not a computer program for human robots. We are supposed to use our own judgment.

Generally, Old Testament rules applied only to the ancient nation of Israel. Any rules still applying to Christians are reiterated in the New Testament.

Hope that helps!


dassercha
Superfan
Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I stopped reading after

I stopped reading after your first reply concerning creation. You left out this part, which I've posted on different threads, ad nauseum. Check it out:

So, Yahweh, created all that is in 6 days**and then** rested on the seventh.

I would like for you to read that above sentence over & over until it becomes abundantly clear how absurd that is.

Yahweh needed TO REST?????????????

Look up this word: Anthropomorphism

Got it? Good. Now you understand everything about the Bible & the whole mindset of our collective ancestors from that era.

Congrats, you're one of us now!!!

Cheers!

 

EDUCATION! EDUCATION! EDUCATION!


triften
atheist
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
nedbrek wrote:  We are

nedbrek wrote:

 We are supposed to use our own judgment.

 

You still haven't explained how you know your interpretation is correct.

-Triften 


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
I see. So I'm supposed to

I see. So I'm supposed to be ignoring the following passages:

Genesis 6:5-6

Proverbs 26:4-5

Ephesians 4:26

Genesis 10:5, 10:20, 10:31

Numbers 11:33

2 Samuel 24:1 (And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.)

1 Kings 15:5 (Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.)

2 Corinthians 4:4 (In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.)

Matthew 37:63, Luke 22:36-38

Galatians 6:2, Galatians 6:5

 

Please read these passages and re-answer my questions. This time, answer all of my questions and not the questions you want to be asked.


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
dassercha wrote: So,

dassercha wrote:
So, Yahweh, created all that is in 6 days**and then** rested on the seventh.

I would like for you to read that above sentence over & over until it becomes abundantly clear how absurd that is.

Yahweh needed TO REST?????????????

He didn't need to rest.  Nowhere does it say He was tired or anything like that.  The creation story is a model for human work.  God worked for six days, and rested one.  We are meant to work six days and rest one.

This is known as "the Sabbath".  The sabbath is a shadow (sign, early representation) for salvation from Jesus.  Before Jesus, people worked in an attempt for salvation (according to the law).  Jesus brings rest from this work.

The question is whether the creation story is also what actually happened.  Christians can disagree about this.


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
triften wrote: nedbrek

triften wrote:
nedbrek wrote:
We are supposed to use our own judgment.
You still haven't explained how you know your interpretation is correct.

Hermeneutics is guided by our understanding of the Bible in the original languages; in the oldest, highest quality manuscripts. We seek an interpretation which is consistant with all of Scripture. We use the clearest passages to help us understand the denser passages. We seek to be consistant with understandings held from the earliest days of the Church.

This is spelled out in a lot more detail in the book "The Rebirth of Orthodoxy" (Thomas Oden). The key is that orthodoxy avoids the problem of modernism - the rejection of all premodern thought. This gives orthodoxy a "long memory" from which to extract useful principles.

Long story, short - I don't "know" I am correct about everything.  The fundamentals are clear and all "real" Christians agree on them.  The other stuff is as clear as we can make it, but there is always room for improvement.

Hope that helps!


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
CrimsonEdge wrote: Please

CrimsonEdge wrote:
Please read these passages and re-answer my questions. This time, answer all of my questions and not the questions you want to be asked.

Sure, there were no passages at first, so I had to guesstimate Smiling

CrimsonEdge wrote:
Genesis 6:5-6

This is "was He pleased". Chapter 6 is just before the Flood. After the Fall (sin) God was very displeased. God is not pleased with sin.

CrimsonEdge wrote:
Proverbs 26:4-5

Right, what I said. I mean, Solomon wrote the whole thing, in that order. Would he write verse 4? Then 5, and say, ok!

CrimsonEdge wrote:
Ephesians 4:26

Right, about being angry. It is ok to be angry, but you must not let it cross into sin. That is a very hard problem, so better to not be angry at all (unless it is a necessary, "righteous" anger).

CrimsonEdge wrote:
Genesis 10:5, 10:20, 10:31

Sure, chapter 10 is the flow of peoples from the ark after the Flood. The details are given immediately following, chapter 11.

CrimsonEdge wrote:
Numbers 11:33

Is this guilt (by order) or sickness (by context)? This passage shows God's displeasure with people complaining about His way of doing things.

CrimsonEdge wrote:
2 Samuel 24:1 (And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.)

1 Kings 15:5 (Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.)

2 Samuel 24:10 shows that David believed he had sinned regarding the census. The writer of 1 Kings is referring to David's remaining in faith his whole life. The matter of Uriah was the greatest of David's sins (certainly not the only). Even in this matter, he did not lose faith.

CrimsonEdge wrote:
2 Corinthians 4:4 (In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.)

 Right, Satan can steal the Word for your heart (Matthew 13:19).  But Satan cannot act without God's permission.  So, ultimately, disbelief comes from God.  It pleases Him to oppose the proud.  The best defense against this is not to be proud Smiling

CrimsonEdge wrote:
Matthew 37:63, Luke 22:36-38

I think the Matthew is 26:52? (My Matthew stops at chapter 28...). Right, Jesus (in Luke) is verifying that the ear chopping in Matthew 26:51 happens, so He can give the lesson of Matthew 26:52.

CrimsonEdge wrote:
Galatians 6:2, Galatians 6:5

Right, Paul wrote Galatians. He is not going to directly contradict himself in the course of three verses! You can also apply 2 Thessalonians 3:10.

Hope that helps!


triften
atheist
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
nedbrek

nedbrek wrote:

Hermeneutics is guided by our understanding of the Bible in the original languages; in the oldest, highest quality manuscripts. We seek an interpretation which is consistant with all of Scripture. We use the clearest passages to help us understand the denser passages. We seek to be consistant with understandings held from the earliest days of the Church.

 

Could you clarify what you mean by "highest quality"? Do you mean most complete? Best condition?

What if you have multiple manuscripts and each is a little different? How do you decide which is correct?

So you apply your bias to the clearer passages so that bias can carry over to interpreting the denser passages? How do you know what the understandings were in the earliest days? How can you be sure that at some point there was a change in the church in which they replaced many teachings? Could have happened sometime between 30AD and 70ishAD... 

nedbrek wrote:

Long story, short - I don't "know" I am correct about everything. The fundamentals are clear and all "real" Christians agree on them. The other stuff is as clear as we can make it, but there is always room for improvement.

So it's a matter of popularity since all the "real" Christians agree? Please define "real" Christian. 

-Triften