What do you think is true in the bible. It seems like you are prevaricating. And if something is true in the bible what is it and why is it true?

Let's all assume that is 100% true for this discussion -

Where do you want to go from there Andrew ? — Rank Amateur

I think people should stop promoting biblical infallibility and stop proselyting and should teach people the bible in a critical way without making false claims.

Personally my interpretation of the bible and my examination of the contradictions leads me to reject most of Christianity especially in a literal sense.

I am a not assuming the bible contradicts itself. I know it does. Like I said in the other thread I think contradictions are a good tool for examining somethings truth.

Some of the Bible may be true. If someone wants to make this claim I want to see the evidence.

I don't think "interpretation" should be an excuse for completely twisting statements in the bible or being tactically vague.
Christians are trying to spread Christianity around the world and trying to translate the bible into every language. In the face of this I think people being targeted to in this way by proselytizing and evangelicalism have a right to response and challenge. I think children have a right to chose their own religion and not to be indoctrinated.

Contradictions in what? — BrianW

Contradictory claims abut the same topic leading to confusion.

Why should the bible be infallible? — BrianW

I am not claiming it is or should be. But many people still make this claim. I think if you believe the bible is just something to be interpreted and not lawful then anyone can interpret it as they see fit or based on their sense of revelation.

However if you interpret it using notions of logic and fact and commandment or law then your interpretation is going to be criticized using these tools. I have no problem with positive and non harmful interpretations of scripture. I had this interpretation myself as a child as I mentioned in the other thread I focused on verse like "Turn the other cheek" I think that you can get some kind of inspiration from the Bible by interpretation but I wouldn't call interpretation fact.

There are long and detailed Wikipedia articles on all this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_consistency_of_the_Bible

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism

I don't think omnipotence makes sense without context. I think some omnipotence paradoxes only exist because of the flexibility of language.

So for example we can say "A Square Circle" even though that is contradictory based on definitions. So should Gods be able to do anything we can state in language or should their omnipotence exist in the external world of physical constraints?

I think God could make a large rock and then weaken his muscles so he was unable to lift the rock (assuming he has muscles and a body). But I think the main problem for omnipotence is why God doesn't intervene in suffering and who created suffering.

Only those who wish to direct ridicule or scorn to God seem to dwell on them — BrianW

I am the person who started the contradictions thread and in there I did not make any claims about Gods existence. My primary question is how truth can exist with contradictions.

I am personally an agnostic and I have argued a lot with atheists and materialists.

The issue bible inerrancy is a valid theological topic with a long history that a lot has been written about not something invented by the "New atheists"

My thread was targeted at people who claim the bible (or some other work) is infallible.

Contradictions are most problematic for people who believe in Biblical infallibility. The infallibility doctrine tends to be preached by groups like the Evangelicals and The Plymouth Brethren sect I grew up in.

When I have discussed this with my parents they often supported infallibility but when you push them they admit they are using interpretation. But then they claim their interpretation is true because the holy spirit revealed it to them

Im not sure who you think you are talking to here. Was that supposed to address something I said? Im the one that agreed with you. — DingoJones

Sorry I was feeling upset yesterday. But I did not like comments like this, from other people

"Yes, literally contradictory. Oh dear, God screwed up. Woe is you!"
and
"So, you haven't read it? And I am pretty sure you do not understand it - as a whole book. "

My initial point was to ask do contradictions discredit something. I feel that people (not you) ignored that topic to focus on defending the bible.
So I had to point out what is at stake like the threat of hell, condemnation for homosexuality (my own experience) but also historically there has been the crusades, wars, the inquisition, Witch hunts, burning people to stake for heresy and so on. That is why I felt disheartened when biblical doctrine and disagreements has been the source of a lot of evils.

This a classic numerical contradiction:


2 Kings 8:26
Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri, king of Israel.

2 Chronicles 22:2
Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri.

Regarding the first issue, the consensus among Christians is that the only unforgivable sin, which Jesus called "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost," is rejecting the forgiveness that God otherwise offers. — aletheist

This is what you said ^^^

In the link I posted it says "The great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity. Titus 2:13-14

You cited the consensus among Christians. there is no consensus. there is lots of schisms among Christianity on interpretations of the bible.

There is also this verse

Hebrews 10:26, "For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins."

Yet in Revelation 3:5 it says

"The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life"

As Abraham Lincoln famously said, "Do not believe everything that you read on the Internet." — aletheist

The reason I believed it is because it quoted and compared the words written in the bible.

Only if one is easily persuaded by shallow caricatures. — aletheist

You have yet to refute one contradiction. And it seems also you refuse to engage.

If someone says 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 would you call that an alleged contradiction?

What is the alleged contradiction? — aletheist

It is not a case of contradiction but there is no charitable interpretation to give it.

This a great succinct illustration of biblical contradiction.

I advocate being a charitable reader — aletheist

How do you apply the principle of charity to this verse?

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

On the contrary, you are repeatedly asserting your own dogmatic beliefs about the Bible. — aletheist

I am not stating my own beliefs I have quoted the scripture.

As I pointed out people claim that if you are not a Christian you will go to hell.

But people are suggesting contradictions in the bible don't matter or giving vague answers.

If I was speaking to a bomb disposal expert I would want to know which of the wires to cut, red or green it would not be a trivial issue.

I have discussed at length elsewhere my belief people should not create more children (antinatalism) and got less vociferous responses.

The bible impacts billions of peoples lives and philosophies and is forcefully promoted so it is not a case of benign personal belief where inconsistencies don't matter and no one is harmed.

I am referring to what the bible actually says and not Christians believe.

I gave detailed scriptural reference earlier to the blatant contradiction of whether people should be punished for the sins of their fathers.

I think it is totally immoral and indefensible to punish people for the sins of others yet that happens frequently in the bible.

But most contradictions are just numerical and factually incoherent such as what time king began to reign or how many troops fought at a battle and sequences of events.

For example:

"Now Absalom ... said, I have not sons to keep my name in remembrance" 2 Samuel 18:18

vs

And unto Absalom there were born three sons. 2 Samuel 14:27

Why? — DingoJones

If you cannot work that out why should I waste any more words?

I am not really interested in trying to deal with every alleged contradiction in the Bible — aletheist

It is not alleged contradictions.

Since you take this stance then there is no point talking to you.

You started right in from the very beginning attacking the Bible specifically — Jake

How is the factual and irrefutable claim that the bible contains contradictions attacking the bible?

It is simply a fact.

The Bible is not a person that can be attacked. I was critiquing the Bible as a source of truth.

I have explained why I started with the bible numerous times now.

The thread was originally about the effect of contradiction on truths but the response has been people defending the bible.

So I have had to point out that harmful doctrines in the Bible ought to be challenged. That is the only reason i mentioned atrocities and then my own personal experience of religious harm.

If you want to challenge communism or atheism on the grounds of contradiction then please do so as soon as possible.

I used the bible as an example because of infallibility claims made on its behalf which are not usually made in other areas. I don't know of any contradictory doctrines or infallibility claims that communists promote so how could I base the discussion around that?

In the Bible and other Religions it actually claims you will go to hell if you don't do X, Y and z which makes it obviously very important to be able to ascertain the truth.

I have found the responses on this thread very disheartening and depressing.

If all you're about is some sentences in that book that are inconsistent with some other sentences of that book, — tim wood

That is a straw man and probably ad hominem.

The contradictions are central to the the coherence of the bible and understanding its doctrines.

The Bible is collection of books written at different times so the idea there is an overarching message is implausible. Personally I find what is actually written in the bible is important and not some overarching subjective interpretation.

I don't think you can drown out offensive parts of the bible with the notion of some overarching theme. I have just been focusing on contradictions here but there are lots of other critics of the bible and arguments I accept that it is a very immoral text.

Here is the Skeptics annotated bible list of 492 contradictions in the bible and it does not cover all of them there.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

The contradictions about series event and numbers are problematic because there is no way to know which claim is to believe such as at what age a king came to the throne. But doctrinal and and moral contradictions are even more problematic because they undermine any over arching message you claim is there.

Issues such as are there unforgivable sins

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/unforgivable.html

and who should the gospel be preached to

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/samaritans.html

none of the above — Rank Amateur

My objective is how to find truth in the midst of conflicting or contradictory claims.

I think we all face the dilemma of finding truth when there are so many claims on the table that are not all compatible.

It can be difficult for dyed in the wool Christians to reject their religious system, but it can be done. — Bitter Crank

It seems to be literalism that makes people reject Christianity/Judaism/Islam etc.

I was taught Literalism and that is probably led me to reject the whole thing.

But Literalists actually have said either you believe it all or you reject it all. I was put in the position either to accept or reject it all.

It does seem that a lot of people want certainty including in science , academics and politics et al or they speak in certainties.

I am an agnostic about everything happy to be proved wrong. But can you really function with this level of skepticism? Where are the other agnostics and true skeptics that don't succumb to some kind of fundamentalism or dogma or certainty?

Claims of inerrancy are made in different ways by different people so you can treat each one based on its own claims. But I did not intend to examine every claim of contradiction in the bible here discuss how you can find the truth amidst contradictory claims.

As a child and teenage Christian I always gave the most positive and generous interpretation of the Bible and focused on verses like "Judge not lest ye be judged" and "turn the other cheek". I never understood why certain people gravitated towards the most extreme or harmful claims in the bible over the many options for a gentler approach.

But usually the reason giving for focus on the damnation type bits is based on the claim of innerrancy.

It is true that someone may not have seen God but they may have spoken to him however there are many verses where people actual saw God and didn't just speak to him.

I think the problem of interpretation does not have a solution though. It does say in the bible that "God is not the author of confusion" if people do not find the bible makes sense or can have multiple meanings or interpretations then that is a confusion.

I am happy to reject the bible as an authority because of these issues. But I am also happy to reject any claims on this grounds.

You must be aware that some Christians believe in the Hell Doctrine?

What I am concerned with is how someone trying to be a Christian could know that they were doing the right thing to avoid hell and similar dilemmas.

I am aware of the wide variety of approaches to the bible. Obviously the biggest concern is minimizing harm from fundamentalists in all walks of life.

The wider issue though is what the role of contradiction is in truth seeking.

I think the problem with philosophy is that it is not radical enough and like most other things suffers from bias.

There have been radical philosophers but their ideas have been downplayed or not taken seriously.

It is kind of ironic now that some scientists have more radical ideas than philosophers whilst philosophers have pandered to an archaic notion of science.

I am currently a moral nihilist because I have not heard a satisfactory defense of morality and I think it is much healthier to accept moral nihilism or moral skepticism than pander to moral prejudices that are probably indefensible. Moral nihilism can be like agnosticism.

It doesn't favour anyone's moral claims or actions and then we can make rules which we know are fallible and provisional.

I first have to ask you if we are going also going to be highlighting the mass slaughter of millions by explicitly atheist regimes in the 20th century. If yes, then I would accept your proposal as being a function of reason. If not, then I would define it as mere ideology. — Jake

This thread is explicitly about contradictions and truth. If you want to highlight contradictory beliefs and untruths in atheist, secular and communist regimes you are free to do so.
I mentioned atrocities as being a strong incentive to critically assess religion but that can apply to any belief.

You cannot successfully defend religious atrocities by pointing out other atrocities. Two wrongs don't make a right.

However I have personal experience here that is relevant. I was preached to about hell every week in church in Gospel meetings. I also went to church up to 5 times a week and I was told homosexuality was evil and I am also gay.
So after having been forced to sit through so much religion being made to live in fear of hell and damnation and being made to feel awful and paranoid about my sexuality and now having faced life long problems it is very valid and important to me to ascertain the truth of religious claims that are threatening and condemning me.

On the other hand if another doctrine like science does not claim to be infallible it can not be charged with a making such claims. Science can make false claims and damaging claims but it won't or can't defend them on the grounds of infallibility and it can discard such claims (eventually). So I have focused on religions because they are the main source of infallibility claims and make some of the biggest most life altering claims.

The contradictions in the bible are real contradictions that cannot be resolved.

Your idea that you understand the bible more than X is simply a delusion in my opinion. I think it is impossible to understand something that does not make sense.

It is a common (psychologically manipulative) tactic to claim that people who have a differing opinion on the bible than you have not read it in the right way. If I had read Harry Potter everyday for 17 years every day it is certain that I would know a lot about the book. Contradictions are an important source of biblical critique and questioning the meaning of the bible. Ignoring contradictions is gross ignorance or denial in my opinion.

You don't have to be an atheist or ruthless logician to see glaring problems and I have highlighted the the main problem of completely incompatible and contradictory claims and I am only criticizing biblical literalism and truth claims here not alternative analysis of biblical meaning.

Yes, some people will suffer the consequences of those they're associated with. Those who can avoid it, should and often do. It's all a part of being in situations and relations. — BrianW

This what the bible actually says in Exodus 20:5

" I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me."

These people are being deliberately punished not suffering by association to someone else's bad deeds.

But then in Ezekiel 18;20 it claims:

"The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. "

There are many more passages in the Bible on the same topic with contradictory claims. So it is the same contradictory claims repeated several times leaving no way to chose which doctrine is true and no real ambiguity but just direct contradictions. An action can not be justified by citing one scripture without being undermined by another scripture.

Like art. Typically entirely fictional, but often shining a useful light on truths about the human condition. — Jake

The problem is religion has been the source of atrocities as well as more positive things. If something is wrong and inspires cruelty then I think the problems need highlighting.

What I would be attacking hear is biblical literalism. But even if one is not a biblical literalist there are still problematic verses in the bible.

But if you want to build a case against the Bible (for whatever reason) you should come up with something more substantial and compelling than a few contradictions. — Bitter Crank

It is not a few contradictions it is numerous contradictions on key doctrines which make it totally incoherent.

Should people be punished for the sins of their fathers? The Bible gives conflicting answers definitely Yes and definitely No.

Should people be killed definitely yes and definitely no.

Is salvation permanent? Both yes and No.

Is marriage a good thing ? Yes or No

Is God the author of confusion? Definitely yes and definitely no.

How many examples do you want? On top of the "contradictions" criticism there is the cruelty and genocide criticism and much more.

But I do not think it is possible to claim you understand the bible when faced with stark contradictions if you claim this I think it is simply a personal fantasy equivalent to someone saying how they understand that a triangle can be a circle.

I am not criticizing the bible per se but asking how you can derive truths from contradiction and asking why you shouldn't reject something highly contradictory.

I think you can select single inspirational verses from the bible but then these in context will be contradicted elsewhere. As someone who grew up in a hell and damnation religious environment I am not happy to face years of threat and intimidation based on a highly suspect definitely incoherent and contradictory text.

If someone wants to refute the claim that the bible contradicts itself then they can prove that by refuting a given example of a contradiction.

But what concerns me here is when you do have a contradiction how you maintain or discover the truth. In science I think they can test a hypothesis by empirical means. So evidence will prove or disprove a claim.

Logical analysis can show that two statements are incompatible but not necessarily which is true. but not all contradictory claims can be resolved by empirical evidence.

Personally I feel happy to reject something once I find a logical inconsistency or contradiction inhering and would need a lot of persuasion to think otherwise. I would not take a Pascal type of wager on something which was illogical. that is to say I would not take a risk on or put faith in an incoherence.

(On another note can a computation contain a contradiction?)

I spent my whole childhood having the bible read to me everyday for 17 years.

I am here referring to explicit contradictions in the bible of which there are many well documented.

Some contradictions are ethical contradictions such as It says people should not be punished for the sins of their fathers and then it contradicts that. Other contradictions simply disagree on a sequence of events, who was involved and how old they were.

I am discussing claims of truth here and infallibility. So for example this link highlights all the contradictory versus on whether or not God can be seen.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/seen.html

"No man hath seen God at any time". John 1:18, 1 John 4:12

The Lord talked with you [the people of Israel] face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire. Deuteronomy" 5:4

I don't see how you can derive any notion of truth from the degree of contradictions seen in the bible. However I would agree that people can live lives with contradiction and based on fantasy if you want to defend an allegorical version of religion. But a bomb disposal expert and such like could not afford to be given such contradictory instructions.

People expect him to work because they have to work, and they feel its unfair for someone to never have to work — Clark Callander

I think that fairness in work is probably highly desirable.

It seems to be chronic inequality and unfairness that cause people to have to to different types of work and different degrees of work.

I haven't read it but Bertrand Russell did write a book in praise of idleness. But ironically he wrote loads of books which is far from idle.

I think that most antinatalist take issue with parents reasons or lack of reasons for having children

Which then undermines the meaning making process for the individual. The irrationality of attitudes towards procreating and parenting then leads to fear and a sense of abandonment.

My parents life meaning and my experiences and desires are seriously at odds.

I would like to be optimistic for the future but it depends on what evidence you see and whether attitudes are changing.

A person is constantly changing in a flux they are never identical with a previous version of themselves.

However some personal identity is continuous (the self?) and that might be what you are referring to.

I am talking about the process of being caused to exist which is what parents engage in. What is being caused to be exist is an individual created by preexisting matter.

If someone does not chose to come to exist how do they come to exist?
Their parents make them come to exist.

I would find it easy to consider myself causally accountable for creating a child and making them exist by act of force.
It is this forceful lack of consent process which is one of the things that makes me reluctant to reproduce.

What do you mean by his status? He is matter and that matter resides partly in the DNA of his parents and in the environment.

I gave the example earlier of clay being made into a vase. It is the equivalent of that unless you believe in a preexisting spirit.

Humans can exist because of preexisting a matter.

Because Antinatalists are Materialists — Michael Ossipoff

I am not a materialist and also I do not think physics has a picture of reality that is complete and satisfactorily defines the physical or causality
and also I do not think it is a deterministic picture.

Do you think people come out of thin air?