This of course is assuming it has contradictions and has been changed over time. Question Who's Online | Find Members | Private Messages
Questions
Quizzes
Articles
My Journal
Forums
Answer Questions | Question Comments | My Questions | Favorites | +Add Question
LATEST
POPULAR PRIORITY RANDOM

All | Games | Funny | Entertainment | Quizzes | Weird | Tech | People | Arts/Lit | News | Science | Sports | Places | Misc

3,226 hits Rate me! Share Favorite | Flag 18 years ago by WisenHiemer

If the Bible is full of contradictions, do you have a theory why they didn`t edit them out when they were changing it?
This of course is assuming it has contradictions and has been changed over time.


Put This Question on Your Page (MySpace, Livejournal, Blog, etc)
[Preview] EMBED CODE:


Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next (showing 26-50 of 175)

Bottom Last Post

18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 4:55:24 AM EST (GMT-5)
Senorita, even if you go w\ the theory that God believes in attention to detail, you have to allow for the fact that not every single person who reads the Bible is going to interpret it the same way. So one person may see something as being a contradiction whil another may not.
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 5:05:06 AM EST (GMT-5)
cadence, if one part of the bible says on thing, and another part says another thing, i woudl call that contradiction. also if one version of the bible says one thing, and another verison says soemthing different about the smae issue, i woudl also clal that a contradiction...
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 5:11:51 AM EST (GMT-5)
senorita, I wouldn't go so far as to say God doesn't care about the details so much as He understands we're going to screw up the details, so there is forgiveness and judgment based on our faith and faith-inspired efforts, with merciful understanding of our shortcomings.
While the Bible is divinely inspired, it doesn't change the fact that the human scribes who recorded it were imperfect, as have been every scholar, clegyperson, and translator who has come into contact with the text. I don't think that invalidates the Bible as a whole any more than making a mistake eliminates humans from God's grace.
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 5:21:55 AM EST (GMT-5)
my point is, that if they could mix up the details, whose to say they didnt mix up the big facts?
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 5:23:34 AM EST (GMT-5)
Well, there is a level of sensibility in accepting the possibility of their being some errors, however minor, but there is a degree of faith in trusting that the big things are right.
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 5:30:14 AM EST (GMT-5)
ok...i jsut cant place my faith in soemthing which has been proved to contain so many errors, plus,if God was great and He wanted a book to guide people, wouldnt He have made sure it had no errors?
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 5:38:15 AM EST (GMT-5)
I'm going to try this again. Just because you may see something as being an error Senorita doesn't mean that everyone else will see it as being an error also.
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 6:01:35 AM EST (GMT-5)
That's true, Cadence, but there's interpretation and there's just plain logic; if something's inconsistent and contradicts itself, then that's often just the way it is. Maybe certain parts seem that way to people who just haven't heard a reasonable explanation, but there are many things in the Bible which seem inconsistent to me, for which I haven't heard anything resembling a sufficient explanation, and for which I can't imagine one existing.
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 6:03:30 AM EST (GMT-5)
Nozzer makes a very good point about the distinction between logical inconsistency and difference in interpretation.
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 6:14:32 AM EST (GMT-5)
im gonan agree with nozzer on this one too...
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 6:16:41 AM EST (GMT-5)
Well said, Nozzer42.

senorita, I am afraid I just don't agree with your assertion that the Bible has been " proved to contain so many errors," especially the logical inconsistencies Nozzer42 referenced. Ironically, I think your claim of these inconsistencies is a statement of fith in itself, b/c they just haven't been proven.
Ultimately, I must repeat, faith *is* belief without proof, and even belief in the face of suspicious evidence to the contrary.

18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 6:19:18 AM EST (GMT-5)
...And belief without sufficient positive evidence.
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 6:20:59 AM EST (GMT-5)
...sufficient *objective* positive evidence.
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 6:24:14 AM EST (GMT-5)
ok...i dont beleive in beleif wihtout proof, i think thats plain stupid...i think that if inconsistencies occur, of any sort, that gives me enough reason to not believe, but thats jsut my opinion because belief is personal. and i beleive belief in the face of evidene to the contrary is classified as naievety and is only because people exist that are scared of accepting that thye may just be wrong
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 6:27:32 AM EST (GMT-5)
Haha, true Uncle.

So senorita, you don't believe the sun won't explode in ten minutes and destroy the earth? That must make for a fearful existence.

Anyway, there is frequently evidence either way for things. This does not in itself make one account less plausible. This is especially true of cutting edge science, such as the neuroscience and neurophysiology of attentional processes.

18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 6:30:43 AM EST (GMT-5)
You're risking starting to tread on some toes here to say certain things are "stupid" or "naivety," or that people only do so because they are "scared." What I have repeated about faith is its very definition, not some opinion. If you don't accept it, than what you are basically claiming is that you are incapable of, or refuse to have, faith. Yet you have accepted, part and parcel, that there are contradictions in the Bible.
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 6:39:56 AM EST (GMT-5)
UncleLaughie, what im saying is that i dotn beleive faith has to involve blind following, thats all, or my faith doesnt. and if i tread on toes then mayb thats just the way it is. i refuse to have faith if that is your defenition because i find that i cant beleive in somethign that does not make sense

kyry, funny...real funny, who said anythign about the sun exploding an destroying hte earth anyhow?

18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 6:43:00 AM EST (GMT-5)
No one said it wouldn't and there's no proof it won't. The point, which I made facetiously (can't you see that?), is that you're using precise terms very carelessly. It doesn't at all look like you know, or properly understand, what faith and proof really amount to.
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 6:46:41 AM EST (GMT-5)
or mayb my defeinitions are jsut different tou yours...proof is subjective, and maybe faith isnt the right word to describe what im talking about...but its the word you are using
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 6:48:27 AM EST (GMT-5)
Proof absolutely is not subjective. Yes, your definitions are different from mine, but I'm using them in ways that by common consent are their accepted definitions.
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 6:52:24 AM EST (GMT-5)
proof is subjective in the way it is interpreted...
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 6:53:25 AM EST (GMT-5)
Are down that alley again and again and again? Maybe would should have a definition FAQ forum that explains any and every definition which is used in debates, be it scientific, theological or just plain English.
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 6:55:04 AM EST (GMT-5)
What has that got to do with it, senorita?
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 6:55:44 AM EST (GMT-5)
All you're doing is making the point that some people misinterpret objective truths - that's done and dusted.
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 6:57:10 AM EST (GMT-5)
"Ultimately, I must repeat, faith *is* belief without proof, and even belief in the face of suspicious evidence to the contrary."

All beliefs require some shred of proof, though most times its extremely subjective proof. Without proof, there is no reason. Without reason, there is no belief.

You may believe that the sun will turn into a hula dancer in 5 years, but if you dont have any reason to believe that this will happen, youre just making a statement.

I know that it really depends on your definition of proof. My definition is pretty broad in that it extends into personal interpretation, not just solid science-backed evidence, as senorita has mentioned.


Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next (showing 26-50 of 175)



You need to be logged in to post a reply

New to YT? Create a Free Account ~ Have an Account? Log In

Top



10 Most Popular Questions Today
1 If you were allowed to make all guns OR all abortions illegal in your country, which one would you choose to eliminate?

2 Do you still wear a face mask in public?

3 Do you think it's really all that surprising that Iraq detainees are being abused and killed, considering people who voluntarily join the military have no problem with violence?

4 do you prefer fractions or decimals?

5 Are you concerned about the state of the American health care system?

6 Should advocating self harm or suicide result in a permanent ban?

7 Do you think these pictures of Cindy Crawford`s 5-year-old daughter are inappropriate for such a young child?

8 Corn on the cob or candy corn: which do you prefer ?

9 Do you prefer croissants or bagels?

10 Which sport takes more guts and hard work?

More Questions
 
Edit