Errors in the Torah and Septuagint - Fact or Fiction?

Great Debates
81

Sorry, but I was just as disappointed. I haven’t heard anything new yet. I asked for errors and inaccuracies and you complied. As soon as I get the chance I’ll dig out the responses to the points made. I can usually just cut and paste. I was looking for something meatier though - loftier concepts.

(Technically the statement “The Bible is full of errors” was the original challenge, although probably unintentional. Wouldn’t you expect the onus to be there?)

82

It’s a limited conventional connection, though; the Augustinian paradigm was logarithmic to the curve of increasing identity vis-a-vis the trinitarian ideal. Pre-Galilean identity formation on the Hebraic historiography is better defined. Inconsistencies are simply the psychological “folding” of an erratic assimilation imposed on a societal autonomy.

83

Yes.

I’ve said that:

  1. I believe in God.
  2. I believe God is perfect
  3. The next logical conclusion is that His Word is perfect - but with a caveat…

Logically a Sovereign, Omnipotent, Omnipresent God would not do anything imperfectly. If God exists and the Torah is His Inspired Word, is it logical to think it would be imperfect?

I do believe that there are logical answers to the few examples presented here and I’ll attempt to resolve as best I can.

Am I ever wrong? Almost always.

If God doesn’t exist, then I’m certainly wrong, but my belief isn’t nearly as relevent to this thread as “what” Scripture actually says. That’s the crux. I can’t prove God, only what His Word says.

84

Just for the record, there are some people who think that Zoroastrianism was at one point much more monotheistic than it is now, and I’ve seen some speculation in some Orthodox sources that that’s why Cyrus was so good to the Jews…because at that time, at least, Zoroastrinism was a monotheistic, Noachide religion (and fighting against the pagan beliefs of the older Persian religion).

85

I declare Bryan Ekers the winner of this thread.

86

Seconded!

87

“Then we are agreed that yyou falsely posted something quite different when you said”

You’re going to have to explain your conclusion. Your logic isn’t obvious.

“you have a vague grocery list of complaints about any number of Christian denominations that you will trot out at random because you are either unable or unwilling to stick to your own topic as delineated by the OP.”

This statement must have some weak connection to our conversation, but sounds more like the opinion regarding someone you think you know. You don’t. Trust me. My “grocery list” is anything but vague and more importantly it’s not my list.

“You are going to insist that external evidence cannot be used to demonstrate errors in Scripture and, when contradictions are discovered within Scripture, you will fall back on the failure of “true understanding.””

The wise and prophet that you are, your evaluation is decidedly off the mark. Like it or not.

“Since you are pursuing a different question than the one you posted in the OP”

Not very perceptive. It’s all the same thing.

“I will bow out of this discussion.”

Imagine my disappointment. I think your intellect is sufficient, but your heart needs some work…ta

88

Your third step includes an excluded middle. You are assuming that the Christian Bible is “His Word,” but you have established no grounds for doing so. You have to be more careful than that around here.

Also I will give you a respectful fair warning that you should expect your cut and paste boilerplate defenses to the the errors will probably get eviscerated. I’m already quite familiar with all of them, as are a number of others around here. Don’t expect that you’re going to surprise us with anything.

89

I appreciate the effort it must have taken to type all of those in line by line, but before I take a week’s vacation to respond to your incredibly valuable post, I’d like to make sure that your experience with each individual denomination is sufficient to grasp the complexities of a succinct repsonse.

If you could provide your personal perspective on each, it would help me to determine which specific approach would be most fitting for you’re experience level.

I’ll wait…

90

I would add the caveat that, though wisdom can be found in the bible (I actually like the book of Ecclesiastes), that because there is so much anti-wisdom ,one must already know what wisdom looks like, else one might actually stone their children for being stubborn. Knowing what wisdom looks like already, sort of makes the bible superfluous. I would also add that a lot of other books offer considerably more wisdom, without the slightest appeal to the supernatural. Even philosophers of the time period, Plato and Aristotle for example, dwarf the bible with regards to both theoretical and practical insights. I personally don’t think there is hardly a twit of wisdom coming from Jesus. He comes off as no more than a self righteous, communistic, genocidal, hippie to me.

Much, if not all, of which is to varying degrees unknown.

I think this type of answer is much improved from your norm.

91

Baronsabato, are you and your chuchmates so liberal in your interpretations of heaven? If not, why not?

92

Okay. Let’s try this.
If the ants in my yard develop a rudimentary intelligence and begin to wonder about the world around them and some get together and create some books in different areas and times and at some point come together as a tribe and bring these books into one place and, with a little editing and rephrasing and reordering (as in the J,E,D and P documents) they develop a book they agree to call THe PentANTeuch. And in this book they address the Great One (me) that brings the rains and the floods (my sprinklers) and the taking of the unrighteous in a whirlwind (my mower) and the killer of the unworthy (Amdro).
Many generations have passed (a couple of years to me) and their position is “These books are perfect because HE is perfect and if there are any flaws it must be due to translations or misunderstanding because HE is perfect.”
Here are some possibilities.

  1. I am perfect and the book they wrote is also perfect.
  2. I am perfect but the book they wrote is flawed
  3. I am flawed but amazingly enough, the book is dead-on.
  4. I am flawed and the book they made up is flawed.
  5. I do not exist and some ants have written a book that they have held dear for a long time (in ant years at least) and it is flawed because it is written by a bunch of stupid ants.

I think that you believe number 1 but fail to see that there is not necessarily any connection between the two. I can exist outside of the speculative writings of a bunch of ants.

Many Christians I have talked with lean more towards number 2

I’m going with number 5.

93

I appreciate the warning, but I’ve been down this road more times than I can count. When I said that my “list” is cut and paste, I meant that the responses are just as hard to refute because it’s ALL conjecture anyway. Not I nor anyone here has any real proof of anything, just varying degrees of predication based on a personality nuances.

Except for you and a few others it seems like an exceedingly ornery bunch and while I’ve dueled with my share I suspect some are prone to dissension even in the face of legitimate logic.

94

Have fun:

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

I’ll leave it up to you to convert to Hebrew/Greek.

95

“You are assuming that the Christian Bible is “His Word,” but you have established no grounds for doing so”

Well, I did say that my premise is that the Bible is the Word of God early on and that without that we have no common ground. I don’t debate for the sake of debate, but do so in seeking deeper truth. Because Scripture is welded to my brain pan and isn’t something I can easily shed. I like discussing Scripture, but don’t care much for arguing about it.

96

That assumes that God has the same sort of character as me–i.e., is an ass. And that’s far too depressing a thought. Even I wouldn’t want to live in a world as designed by Skald the Rhymer.

97

They already give responses. It’s an interesting link though, I’ll spend some time there. Thanks!

(How do the dissenters handle that? Are there counter-arguments to the answers?)

98

That was very, very cruel. And I mean that as a compliment.

99

Here’s a link that should raise a few hackles.

100

Respectfully, I don’t think you have. At least not with anyone who knows what they’re talking about. You’ve already made a number of errors both factual and logical which suggest some inexperience in debating the subject matter.

No. I’m talking about hard factual errors and demonstrably incompatible contradictions. I’m not talking about translational mistakes or unfounded leaps of interpretation (which I get the impression is what really bothers you).

I’m not sure what you mean by this but many of the errors I’m talking about are eminently provable and surmountable only by the most tortured reaches of speculation, false or unfounded historical claims, disengenuous interpetive devices and other tactics which, I assure you, can be easily countered, refuted and debunked. The Bible contains human error. There is really no question of that, but that, in itself, is not a disproof of the existence of God. You really shouldn’t get too hung up on tying your faith to a necessary belief in the infallibility of the Bible. You might not have realized it but you’ve been debating a couple of Christians in this very thread who can accept human error in the Bible without surrendering their faith. It’s not as difficult as you think.