Bible Contradictions

[tmay11]

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]tmay11 wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:
I will address them to the best of my abilities, .[/quote]

Science = Evidence → Conclusion
Faith = Conclusion → Evidence
[/quote]

This is a fallacy if you consider the two as mutually exclusive. Faith can also = evidence → conclusion. I really don’t want anything to do with this thread, I just want to point that out.

1. Evidence for a belief does not have to be empirical–there are many things that cannot be empirically defined. Many philosophies fall into this category–evidence can be logical or rational argumentation, which is what an exceedingly large chunk of the field of philosophy amounts to. Nobody would say that the field of philosophy is inherently irrational or lacks evidence, although one might say that certain individual philosophies are. Yet the field of philosophy is not largely driven by empirical evidence in the scientific/empiricist sense.

2. A self-evident example of why not all faith is irrational OR without evidence is seen in every day events. Sitting in a chair, starting a car, standing on a ladder. You buy a new wood step ladder from a carpenter down the street. Now, you have a certain amount of faith that the man knew what he was doing and made the ladder out of quality materials and made it correctly, and that it will support your weight. You didn’t do any tests on it. You didn’t measure it’s support qualities independently. YOu just believe it’s going to hold.

Now, you can say that these two examples are worlds apart from what this thread is about–namely religious faith. And I would agree. But the important point is the fact you cannot logically argue against faith itself, because everyone uses it in some capacity. You can only argue degrees of faith and what constitutes an unwarranted or irrational position of faith or what constitutes enough evidence for rational faith. [/quote]

People seem to be assuming i’m saying more than I am and reading to much into it. I pretty much agree with everything you have just said. I never said that the only type of evidence is empirical evidence.

The latter example does not hold - You believe the latter will function because you have good reason to believe so - your past experiences with buying goods, the outward appearance of the latter, the look of the carpenter, the look of his house/the store, this is evidence and adds up to giving you GOOD REASON to believe the latter will function. These things are so automatic you don’t even think about it but consider this - You go to buy a latter, the latter looks un-even and poorly built, in the past you have had latters fall apart on you, the man selling you the latter looks like he just came in off the street, and his home/store is poorly kept. In this situation would you get up on the latter and assume it will hold or would you be at least somewhat apprehensive?

[goldengloves]

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I tried to to bring some of these questions up in another thread, but no one could answer them.

Please prove that Mary was a virgin. Seriously.

Explain why you can’t go to heaven if you have your penis cut off (and in John Bobbit’s case, since it was re-attached does that count?). Deuteronomy 23:1

Here are a few translations:

New International Version (�©1984)
No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the LORD.

New Living Translation (�©2007)
"If a man’s testicles are crushed or his penis is cut off, he may not be admitted to the assembly of the LORD.

English Standard Version (�©2001)
â??No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the LORD.

New American Standard Bible (�©1995)
"No one who is emasculated or has his male organ cut off shall enter the assembly of the LORD.

GOD’S WORDÃ?® Translation (Ã?©1995)
A man whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off may never join the assembly of the LORD.

King James Bible
He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

American King James Version
He that is wounded in the stones, or has his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

American Standard Version
He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the assembly of Jehovah.

Bible in Basic English
No man whose private parts have been wounded or cut off may come into the meeting of the Lord’s people.

Douay-Rheims Bible
An eunuch, whose testicles are broken or cut away, or yard cut off, shall not enter into the church of the Lord.

Darby Bible Translation
He that is a eunuch, whether he have been crushed or cut, shall not come into the congregation of Jehovah.

English Revised Version
He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the assembly of the LORD.

Webster’s Bible Translation
He that is wounded or mutilated in his secrets, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

World English Bible
He who is wounded in the stones, or has his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the assembly of Yahweh.

Young’s Literal Translation
'One wounded, bruised, or cut in the member doth not enter into the assembly of Jehovah;

Let’s start with those two, and if we actually get a dialog going, then I’ll post a few more - hell, we can go chapter by chapter.

[/quote]

Pretty easy to explain, AngryChicken. How could angels come back to earth and fornicate with women without genitals?

Game, set, and match.

[Aragorn]

[quote]tmay11 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

But the important point is the fact you cannot logically argue against faith itself, because everyone uses it in some capacity. You can only argue degrees of faith and what constitutes an unwarranted or irrational position of faith or what constitutes enough evidence for rational faith. [/quote]

People seem to be assuming i’m saying more than I am and reading to much into it. I pretty much agree with everything you have just said. I never said that the only type of evidence is empirical evidence.

The latter example does not hold - You believe the latter will function because you have good reason to believe so - your past experiences with buying goods, the outward appearance of the latter, the look of the carpenter, the look of his house/the store, this is evidence and adds up to giving you GOOD REASON to believe the latter will function. These things are so automatic you don’t even think about it but consider this - You go to buy a latter, the latter looks un-even and poorly built, in the past you have had latters fall apart on you, the man selling you the latter looks like he just came in off the street, and his home/store is poorly kept. In this situation would you get up on the latter and assume it will hold or would you be at least somewhat apprehensive?
[/quote]

But see, that is exactly what I am saying–you can only argue what constitutes a warrant–or “GOOD REASON” as you put it–to believe. This is a much more difficult–or at least complex-- argument to win, especially if you concede that there’s more than simple empirical evidence that is valid, as you have done.

Now, to put your revision of the ladder example to it—yes, it would be completely natural to be apprehensive. On the other hand, apprehension by itself is not particularly damning evidence against faith of some sort–apprehension is an emotional involvement that may or may not be justified. People are naturally apprehensive the more that is at stake. Examples for this can be found across the board from poker where you have a 70% chance of winning a million buck but a pretty decent chance of losing your shirt all the way to apprehension at being at bat in the 9th inning or in a last minute drive with Peyton Manning against a team you’ve got a killer record against to apprehension at changing your political, philosophical, or ethical position on very fundamental issues.

Or to changing a job, where conditional evidence looks like you made the right choice, but you still fret about it. Or to quitting a job.

The examples are myriad.

The question becomes one of “where does it cross the line from being rational faith to irrational faith”. This is a much fuzzier issue and it one reason I don’t particularly like the arrogance many of the luminary atheists present in their writings (See “Richard Dawkins”), or on this board towards religion where they posit a blanket statement that “religion is stupid” or “faith is irrational”. (not directed at you individually)

You (once again, generally speaking) may disagree with it, you might be rational to disbelieve, and you might even be right! But does that necessarily mean that it is irrational to believe the other way? At least much of the time, the answer is no it doesn’t make you irrational.

This is why I disagree with your blanket statement “Faith = conclusion → evidence”.

[Aragorn]

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

Santa.
[/quote]

Angry, I very much like most of your insights on this board whether or not I ultimately agree with them. But could you please tone down the straw man? I’m not making any specific religious arguments with my post other than to defend against the notion that all faith is irrational. I have no real interest in making specific religious arguments here.

[tmay11]

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]tmay11 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

But the important point is the fact you cannot logically argue against faith itself, because everyone uses it in some capacity. You can only argue degrees of faith and what constitutes an unwarranted or irrational position of faith or what constitutes enough evidence for rational faith. [/quote]

People seem to be assuming i’m saying more than I am and reading to much into it. I pretty much agree with everything you have just said. I never said that the only type of evidence is empirical evidence.

The latter example does not hold - You believe the latter will function because you have good reason to believe so - your past experiences with buying goods, the outward appearance of the latter, the look of the carpenter, the look of his house/the store, this is evidence and adds up to giving you GOOD REASON to believe the latter will function. These things are so automatic you don’t even think about it but consider this - You go to buy a latter, the latter looks un-even and poorly built, in the past you have had latters fall apart on you, the man selling you the latter looks like he just came in off the street, and his home/store is poorly kept. In this situation would you get up on the latter and assume it will hold or would you be at least somewhat apprehensive?
[/quote]

But see, that is exactly what I am saying–you can only argue what constitutes a warrant–or “GOOD REASON” as you put it–to believe. This is a much more difficult–or at least complex-- argument to win, especially if you concede that there’s more than simple empirical evidence that is valid, as you have done.

Now, to put your revision of the ladder example to it—yes, it would be completely natural to be apprehensive. On the other hand, apprehension by itself is not particularly damning evidence against faith of some sort–apprehension is an emotional involvement that may or may not be justified. People are naturally apprehensive the more that is at stake. Examples for this can be found across the board from poker where you have a 70% chance of winning a million buck but a pretty decent chance of losing your shirt all the way to apprehension at being at bat in the 9th inning or in a last minute drive with Peyton Manning against a team you’ve got a killer record against to apprehension at changing your political, philosophical, or ethical position on very fundamental issues.

Or to changing a job, where conditional evidence looks like you made the right choice, but you still fret about it. Or to quitting a job.

The examples are myriad.

The question becomes one of “where does it cross the line from being rational faith to irrational faith”. This is a much fuzzier issue and it one reason I don’t particularly like the arrogance many of the luminary atheists present in their writings (See “Richard Dawkins”), or on this board towards religion where they posit a blanket statement that “religion is stupid” or “faith is irrational”. (not directed at you individually)

You (once again, generally speaking) may disagree with it, you might be rational to disbelieve, and you might even be right! But does that necessarily mean that it is irrational to believe the other way? At least much of the time, the answer is no it doesn’t make you irrational.

This is why I disagree with your blanket statement “Faith = conclusion → evidence”. [/quote]

Ah, these discussions are often made so difficult because so much hinges on how we define our terms…

I would be curious as how you would define the word faith, this is of the utmost importance because I define faith as such - “Believing in something despite lack of evidence”. Since I believe that a belief requires good evidence to be rational “faith” is, by very definition, irrational.

What you brought up when I talked about “good reason” -

It’s important to realize that we rarely (or could be argued never) have enough evidence to justify a belief held with 100% certainty. In philosophy there is an idea called the “principle of proportional belief” - that is that you meter your belief in something according to the evidence you hold - if the evidence is lacking or is 50/50 you should suspend judgment, if the evidence supports “not P” you believe “not P”.

Believing the latter will hold IS rational(doesn’t require faith) because the overwhelming majority of our evidence tells us it is true. To go around in life suspending judgment on things with which we aren’t certain would leave us paralyzed. Consider an example - Do you really KNOW the earth rotates around the moon ? Have you actually observed and recorded it? No - but it would still be irrational to believe it wasn’t the case as all or your evidence supports the notion that it does. My point is this - a belief doesn’t need to be certain to be rational. A belief, to be rational, does require that the evidence at least supports it to a small degree( > 50%).

I will very readily admit that I can’t disprove the existence of a god - this doesn’t at all mean though that it’s any bit rational to believe in a god. As I sit here typing on my computer imagining what you might look like I can picture to myself someone 5’10" tall, 184.6 lbs, having blue eyes and long blond hair - In this moment I can’t disprove it yet it obviously not at all rational to go around with an unshakable belief that this is so.

-Just re-read what you wrote and as I said things are hard to discuss when we have very different interpretations of the same words - you use the term “rational faith” i’m sure you can see from what I have wrote that I would consider this to be an oxymoron.

[honest_lifter]

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I tried to to bring some of these questions up in another thread, but no one could answer them.

Please prove that Mary was a virgin. Seriously.

Explain why you can’t go to heaven if you have your penis cut off (and in John Bobbit’s case, since it was re-attached does that count?). Deuteronomy 23:1

Here are a few translations:

New International Version (�?�©1984)
No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the LORD.

New Living Translation (�?�©2007)
"If a man’s testicles are crushed or his penis is cut off, he may not be admitted to the assembly of the LORD.

English Standard Version (�?�©2001)
�¢??No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the LORD.

New American Standard Bible (�?�©1995)
"No one who is emasculated or has his male organ cut off shall enter the assembly of the LORD.

GOD’S WORDÃ??Ã?® Translation (Ã??Ã?©1995)
A man whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off may never join the assembly of the LORD.

King James Bible
He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

American King James Version
He that is wounded in the stones, or has his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

American Standard Version
He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the assembly of Jehovah.

Bible in Basic English
No man whose private parts have been wounded or cut off may come into the meeting of the Lord’s people.

Douay-Rheims Bible
An eunuch, whose testicles are broken or cut away, or yard cut off, shall not enter into the church of the Lord.

Darby Bible Translation
He that is a eunuch, whether he have been crushed or cut, shall not come into the congregation of Jehovah.

English Revised Version
He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the assembly of the LORD.

Webster’s Bible Translation
He that is wounded or mutilated in his secrets, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

World English Bible
He who is wounded in the stones, or has his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the assembly of Yahweh.

Young’s Literal Translation
'One wounded, bruised, or cut in the member doth not enter into the assembly of Jehovah;

Let’s start with those two, and if we actually get a dialog going, then I’ll post a few more - hell, we can go chapter by chapter.

[/quote]

Pretty easy to explain, AngryChicken. How could angels come back to earth and fornicate with women without genitals?

Game, set, and match.
[/quote]

On a serious note. This is pretty easy. The Law was done away with with Christ, so this no longer applies; made clear in the Greek scriptures.

Discussing what was actually meant by castrating and why it was done is a different matter, but I wanted to supply you with a direct answer.

[SteelyD]

[quote]tmay11 wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:
I will address them to the best of my abilities, .[/quote]

I really hope you don’t take the route of “well I just don’t know the answer to that”, this is what my mom does. Basically you begin the search WITH THE CONCLUSION and if something doesn’t jive with that conclusion then you " just haven’t found the answer yet".

Science = Evidence → Conclusion
Faith = Conclusion → Evidence
[/quote]

Really? Scientists say they “don’t know the answer to that” all the time.

[swoleupinya]

[quote]tmay11 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]tmay11 wrote:
modern morality. [/quote]

I won’t take this conversation farther than this, but your statement that I quoted is a substantial reason why you think those events are conflicting. Truth is truth, and that includes morality. There is no such thing as “modern” morality, at least in my eyes. But that is for the Atheism-O-Phobia thread.[/quote]

Could you clarify this a bit?

I agree with you that “truth is truth” and this includes morality ; There IS right and wrong when it comes to morality. When I use the term “modern morality” I mean the morality that is typically seen as correct today - IMO In the past many more people might have been able to rationalize punishing descendants of criminals.

So I guess i’m saying this - There is such thing as “moral” and it does not change with time - What people PERCEIVE to be moral can though obviously change over time. I think that IN GENERAL we have today (last 200 years) moved toward a closer “truth” concerning morality. This is why I implicitly associated todays morality with the “true” morality.

Does this make sense? [/quote]

Evolutionary Morality… look it up.

Your definition of morality is not the only valid one.

[swoleupinya]

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]tmay11 wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:
I will address them to the best of my abilities, .[/quote]

I really hope you don’t take the route of “well I just don’t know the answer to that”, this is what my mom does. Basically you begin the search WITH THE CONCLUSION and if something doesn’t jive with that conclusion then you " just haven’t found the answer yet".

Science = Evidence → Conclusion
Faith = Conclusion → Evidence
[/quote]

Really? Scientists say they “don’t know the answer to that” all the time.[/quote]

Right… but, they don’t have a conclusion in that case.

[system]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Now he’s done it!!! LOL!!! Forbes my good man, this may wind up being a major contributing factor in your embracing transcendental Christian epistemology. Hope yer armored up for this one brother.

BTW, I am absolutely not laughing AT you at all. Don’t take it that way.[/quote]

I thought forbes was a chick with too much eye make-up.

[Sloth]

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Explain why you can’t go to heaven if you have your penis cut off [/quote]

The verse isn’t even speaking of heaven.

[swoleupinya]

Sloth!

Where u been?

[Rational_Gaze]

You must have exactly the right amount of genital mutilation to be in the assembly of the Lord. If you have your foreskin cut off, that’s fine, but any more than that and you’re barred.

[Sloth]

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Sloth!

Where u been?[/quote]

Relaxing, seeing family, and overall enjoying the break between semesters. Even so, just haven’t felt motivated to put any effort into any of the ongoing debates, lately. Anyways, hope your own semester finished up to your satisfaction.

[swoleupinya]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Sloth!

Where u been?[/quote]

Relaxing, seeing family, and overall enjoying the break between semesters. Even so, just haven’t felt motivated to put any effort into any of the ongoing debates, lately. Anyways, hope your own semester finished up to your satisfaction. [/quote]

4.0… so, I’m happy. Of course, it is pretty basic material.

I feel ya’. I pretty much only post while I’m eating, and my family is asleep… it takes me a long tie to eat 50 grams of protein.

How was school for you?

[Pangloss]

This thread won’t end well and is largely irrelevant. Cognitive dissonance will be displayed and reaching for any answer, no matter how improbable, will also be evident.

So, in that vein, my questions are:

1. Why is it important whether or not the bible is infallible?
2. By infallible, do you mean the original text? all texts?
3. Even if the bible was infallible at one point, how could we tell? I suppose this piggy-backs off of the last question, but suppose I wrote a bible and simply included something wrong in it. Would my writing some how auto-magically correct? How would the fallible text I included be omitted from the final product? In short, how is the bible’s infallibility preserved?

[Sloth]

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
How was school for you?[/quote]

Excellent. Same results as your own, in fact. Few things compare to the feeling of turning in final exams without a worry. Recharged and ready for next semester.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]tmay11 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]tmay11 wrote:
modern morality. [/quote]

I won’t take this conversation farther than this, but your statement that I quoted is a substantial reason why you think those events are conflicting. Truth is truth, and that includes morality. There is no such thing as “modern” morality, at least in my eyes. But that is for the Atheism-O-Phobia thread.[/quote]

Could you clarify this a bit?

I agree with you that “truth is truth” and this includes morality ; There IS right and wrong when it comes to morality. When I use the term “modern morality” I mean the morality that is typically seen as correct today - IMO In the past many more people might have been able to rationalize punishing descendants of criminals.

So I guess i’m saying this - There is such thing as “moral” and it does not change with time - What people PERCEIVE to be moral can though obviously change over time. I think that IN GENERAL we have today (last 200 years) moved toward a closer “truth” concerning morality. This is why I implicitly associated todays morality with the “true” morality.

Does this make sense? [/quote]

Yes.

The original sin thing you talked about. We’re not directly punished because of our ancestors transgressions. However, we do feel the effects of their actions. Think about this, how bad will Madoff’s grandchildren have it, socially. His name will still be around as the man that took Wall Street for their money.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]tmay11 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]tmay11 wrote:
modern morality. [/quote]

I won’t take this conversation farther than this, but your statement that I quoted is a substantial reason why you think those events are conflicting. Truth is truth, and that includes morality. There is no such thing as “modern” morality, at least in my eyes. But that is for the Atheism-O-Phobia thread.[/quote]

Could you clarify this a bit?

I agree with you that “truth is truth” and this includes morality ; There IS right and wrong when it comes to morality. When I use the term “modern morality” I mean the morality that is typically seen as correct today - IMO In the past many more people might have been able to rationalize punishing descendants of criminals.

So I guess i’m saying this - There is such thing as “moral” and it does not change with time - What people PERCEIVE to be moral can though obviously change over time. I think that IN GENERAL we have today (last 200 years) moved toward a closer “truth” concerning morality. This is why I implicitly associated todays morality with the “true” morality.

Does this make sense? [/quote]

Evolutionary Morality… look it up.

Your definition of morality is not the only valid one.
[/quote]

Hey if you want to be the champion, instead of practicing to hit the bullseye, just create your own bullseyes, right?

[Tiribulus]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
<<< just haven’t felt motivated to put any effort into any of the ongoing debates, lately. >>>[/quote]I think I might be getting there. I was just about to PM you. Literally tonight. I was beginning to worry. We may be approaching a meaningless cacophonous roar here I fear. No reflection on Forbes or this thread in particular.