Thread: Biblical contradictions

Originally Posted by Common Sense Craig

Another empty post from an indoctrinated person scared of that thing called "God."

I see no common sense in your reply post Craig? :whistling:

Originally Posted by Coolio43

I see no common sense in your reply post Craig? :whistling:

It's okay. You believe and don't open your mind.

I don't believe, but I accept and respect what you believe in, with an opened mind.

Why should Christians have any less say in government and society and society than, say, liberatarians or democrats? All three are nothing but belief structures, and ones that can interpreted very loosely.

Is it just because it's a religion? Civic institutions have been replacing religion rapidly in our world, and a belief structure is just that, and should be equally respected. Not wanting to give Christians a voice in government or having an innate fear is the same thing as not wanting to give Jews, or Log Cabin Republicans a voice. If the majority wish it, so be it.

Post #28...hmmm...

Falls under the

some nonsensical answer such as "Jacob was Heli's pinch-hitter, but there's absolutely no evidence of this in the bible, so you have to have faith".

category of answers.

As expected.

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

Post #28...hmmm...

Falls under the



category of answers.

As expected.

That is not the way that the rules governing the evaluation of evidence operate.

The hypothesis was that there was a contradiction: that Joseph was listed as having two different fathers.

To believe that the hypothesis is true we need to know that there are no other possible alternatives. We do not need to know that the alternatives are absolutley true.

No faith is needed in the alternative explanations because it does not matter if we have faith in them or not. It only matters that the hypothesis is not guaranteed. Thus it is not logical to state that there is a contradiction between the two statements of Joseph's geneology. There might be a contradiction but only if we can demonstrate that there are no other explanations.

Originally Posted by Luigi

Why should Christians have any less say in government and society and society than, say, liberatarians or democrats? All three are nothing but belief structures, and ones that can interpreted very loosely.

Because they are not citizens and they don't pay taxes. Oops that's not the answer.

Let's try every single person in this country gets to influence the political process in a variety of ways.

Some (the citizens of a certain age) get to vote.
Some get to donate money.
Some get to persuade other people to act or vote a certain way.
Some have grass roots marches on washington.
Some form organizations to do the above.
ETc.

Originally Posted by lakeman

That is not the way that the rules governing the evaluation of evidence operate.

Sure it is.

I prophesied that the excuse would be double-talk and the provided excuse relied on re-interpretations and double-talk.

Originally Posted by lakeman

The hypothesis was that there was a contradiction: that Joseph was listed as having two different fathers.

To believe that the hypothesis is true we need to know that there are no other possible alternatives. We do not need to know that the alternatives are absolutley true.

Ummm....no. All you've done is provide possible alternatives. What you did not do is rule out the possibility that the Bible has a contradiction.

All that can be said about that particular example is that the layer of re-interpretation needed wasn't very thick.

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

Ummm....no. All you've done is provide possible alternatives. What you did not do is rule out the possibility that the Bible has a contradiction.

You are correct. I did provide a possible alternative to this one objection. In this little game the people who think there are contradictions only need to find one example that cannot be disputed reasonable. While the people who oppose that point of view need to dispute every objection reasonably. So until every objection has been disputed we cannot rule out the possibility that there is a contradiction somewhere.

Now this game has been going on for a very long time and to date no one has come up with an alleged contradiction that does not have a reasonable explanation.

All that can be said about that particular example is that the layer of re-interpretation needed wasn't very thick.

You are correct again. In this example it was not difficult to find a reasonable explanation.

Lets review:

This is the opening post:

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

There are two ways this would have been ironclad.

Example one:

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph, which was begat from Heli.

or Example two:

MAT 1:16 And Joseph the husband of Mary was the direct son of Jacob, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph, which was the direct son of Heli.

Neither of those was given so for the opening post to be an example of a contradiction "begat = son" would have to be true. I gave one way that begat might not equal son and there are numerous other examples where the two words are not used to mean the same thing.

Sometimes son means son-in-law.
Sometimes it means grandson.
And sometimes it means descendent.
That's the thing about translating languages. Words don't always translate cleanly and easily. Anyone who speaks a different language knows that.

There is no doubt that begat does not always = son.

I have a few questions for anyone in this argument, or with an opinion regarding Christianity and it's involvement in government. I understand where the bible has holes in the plot and contradictions, no big deal. That in itself does not necessarily cancel everything else out, the overall message is what is important. I also understand people hate to be told what to do, and what to believe, and that the US constitution seperates church and state from an operational standpoint, in other words they didn't want ruling bodies and mergers of the two. But I'm curious.....


Why DOES the bible contain contradictions? For instance the sun and planets revolving around the Earth, completely different descriptions of the same events, etc... Supposed wrong names are nitpicking in my opinion, my beef is with the bigger statements. Also, if the overall message (The 10 commandments, quotes from Jesus, and other moralistic parables) is what is important, why the hangups with issues like gay people? Isn't that all based on a select quote or two in the Jewish book, and Jesus actually never said anything about it? How about stubbornly only preaching abstinance over condoms and the pill in school? Forget that, why all the sexual hangups in general? Didn't Jesus love hookers and God said ' Go forth and be fruitful'?


And for the other side.......

Why do people so strongly disagree with Christians having a voice in government, many times the dislike and fear goes well beyond that reserved for strictly political opponents? Aren't they just another idealogy on the political landscape? There seriousely is an unbelievable amount of hatred out there, from people in western Christian countries, which seems surprising to me. What are the specific issues you can't stand that they lobby for? Are the issues beyond compromise?