Genesis Chapter 4 Verse 15 thru 26
If Adam had 2 sons (Cain and Abel) who did Cain marry when he went from the presense of the Lord Who did thier sons marry?
This is probably one of the first logical errors of the bible.
Ben:
Cite?
Sorry Ben, the link is below where Polycarp admitted he did not follow, (actually not believe or agree with) Jesus’ teachings regarding it being wrong to divorce a faithful but abusive spouse or it being wrong for a man to marry a divorced woman. He also did not agree with Jesus’ teachings about not saving for the future or retirement. He also on occasion demonstrated that he won’t “give to he who asks,” (If you want I can demonstrate that one in real time), but I have sort of left him off on that one as an example of where ye of little faith just fall short of the ideal. There was more in the below link but the things I just mentioned gave the least wiggle room. Also I cite the Sermon on the Mount from Matthew for Jesus’ admonishment of these things.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=189522&perpage=40&pagenumber=5
Polycarp:
Badchad: One word of warning. You will not address yourself to my ethical shortcomings in your eyes outside the Pit again.
As I have made clear to you in the past I am not addressing your ethical shortcomings but rather illustrating the inconsistency of where you (representing liberal Christianity) don’t even believe what Jesus quite clearly taught, yet you clearly claim otherwise. It’s not a matter of ethics at all, just what I think is cognitive dissonance on your part. Get it? Regardless, it’s a religious matter and belongs on the great debate board not the pit.
Still if you want to say the F-word about me in the pit AGAIN that’s your business.
That’s what it’s there for. Your sniping is turning into personal attacks, which are limited to one forum by the rules you agreed to when you joined this board.
Don’t take it personally. My beef is with the self held “liberal” Christian perspective that they are “reasonable” in their belief systems because they don’t hold the bible as inerrant. You’re being the target of much of my analysis is only because you seem to be the best this board has to offer (certainly the most verbose) with regards to this view, both in my opinion and from what I have seen written by others. As for my sniping, just be glad that I don’t have that much time to devote to the task and as such try to keep my posts short.
Sure thing.
You said that Lot wasn’t righteous because he slept with his daughters. When I pointed out that he didn’t willingly commit incest…
…you switch to arguing that he shouldn’t have overindulged in alcohol. Which is, of course, ridiculous. After seeing his hometown destroyed and his wife killed, Lot overindulges in alcohol- and that one mistake stains his whole life so that he cannot be described as righteous? (Not to mention that the fact that Lot’s realization after the fact that his daughters were pregnant in no way bears on the fact that he didn’t know what had happened at the time.)
Has anyone seen Fuel, BTW? An atheist shouldn’t have to bat all the slow balls in this thread.
The holiday weekend is over so that makes it more difficult to explain Fuel’s continued absence from this thread (has he posted anything at all besides the OP?).
I didn’t get the impression that he was a troll. I thought I’d at least get some of the standard, tortured fundie answers to my own questions (Judas threw the money at the priests, then he hung himself, then he blew up…that still leaves a couple of loose ends like who bought the potter’s field and when and also how did he fall “headlong” if he was dancing at the end of a rope but I’m sure there are answers to those questions too…not good answers, maybe but answers). Maybe fuel is trying to find answers from literalist websites or consulting a pastor.
It’s kind of a shame. We so rarely get an inerrant Biblical literalist who really wants to go toe to toe. Fuel showed a lot of bravado in his OP. I had high hopes. Oh well, maybe he’ll come back.
badchad, you did accuse Polycarp of Hypocrisy…(well actually you accused him of “hypocricy” [sic] )
I would say that’s pretty close to an ethical judgement. It’s a question of tone, and intentionally or not you do come off as a trifle snide in some of your comments to Poly. I think you could make your point just as well if simply ask him to clarify what you perceive as inconsistencies rather than hollering "hypocrite!’
The more civil the tone of your discourse the more convincing your own points will be. The logical content of your arguments is relatively sound but you need to dial down the smugness a little bit. Not that I’m one to talk.
Well, it was truly unfortunate that I wrote this thread assuming my parents’ internet connection was going to be functioning this holiday weekend as I was away from my place all weekend. Stupid Bellsouth DSL…
I am definately too far behind now to keep up with these questions, especially with some work to be done in the next 3 days. All I can do is make a couple general observations about some of the posts I looked over:
I don’t think anyone should assume that the Bible, taking into consideration the way it was formed, is completely inerrant, from our point of view now in this day and time. Now, that is not to say that assuming this, this thread was started all for nothing. But we should all establish some sort of leniency for it’s age, many authors, origin of info, ect. Now hold on a minute!
Keep in mind that for the Bible to be inerrant in the purest and most functional sense of the word, it’s the end result that matters the most: the message conveyed and received as intended by God. So, when I hear “inerrant”, this is what I think of, and there is a fine line between inerrancy and logical errors. Now wait a minute! I want to try and make this dictinction because I feel as if some are misusing the word “inerrant”. I am not even sure if we can reasonably prove “errancy” even if it did exist in the Bible. On top of that, I am not even sure that given a proven logical error, we could even prove errancy thereafter. But, the thread is about errors, and the presence or lack of errors still matters in the sense of “How much faith should I put in the actual words of the Bible and how much faith to put in the essence of the Bible?” That is my motivation behind such a thread. As with most christians you guys have conversed with here, I doubt my faith is on the line in this thread! But being an objective guy, I need to know of errors in order to gain a proper view of the Bible.
With that said, there were some very notable propositions, amongst some frivilous ones. I encourage everyone to keep this going and I will try to catch up on some of these. But, don’t wait for little ol me. Thank you for your attention to this post, and carry on…
Yea! Fuel is back! Thanks for explaining your reasons for asking. I hope that you have found some of the answers you were searching for.
badchad, do you feel that in your responses to Polycarp you have demonstrated the fruits of the spirit as described by Paul? [love; joy; peace; patience; kindness; goodness;faithfulness; gentleness; self-control.) Does it matter to you whether you have or have not?
Do you believe that in your responses to Polycarp you have demonstrated the meekness, mercy and peacefulness taught in the Beatitudes. Does it matter to you whether you have or have not?
Zoe,
badchad is an atheist.
Diogenes the Cynic
*badchad, you did accuse Polycarp of Hypocrisy…(well actually you accused him of “hypocricy” [sic] )
I would say that’s pretty close to an ethical judgement.*
Could be, I do think he is one of the biggest hypocrites on this board, as he frequently pretends to hold beliefs he does not practice or even believe as I illustrated above, which is by Webster’s definition a hypocrite. One could call this a descriptive term or an ethical judgment but the fact remains that he talks A LOT about how he follows Jesus’ teachings but has objectively shown that he does so selectively.
The more civil the tone of your discourse the more convincing your own points will be. The logical content of your arguments is relatively sound but you need to dial down the smugness a little bit. Not that I’m one to talk.
You’re probably right, but I have noticed that smugness towards the fundies on this board is fairly universal, while the liberals often get more of a pass from the nonbelievers, which I think is due to the fact they often argue on the same sides with regards to science and morality. Personally, I think the smugness infidels hold for childish superstitious belief systems, if applied, should be done so consistently. And besides, what’s the fun of being an atheist if you still have to be nice all the time.
Zoe:
badchad, do you feel that in your responses to Polycarp you have demonstrated the fruits of the spirit as described by Paul? [love; joy; peace; patience; kindness; goodness;faithfulness; gentleness; self-control.) Does it matter to you whether you have or have not?
I think I used self control, as aside from that, no and no.
Do you believe that in your responses to Polycarp you have demonstrated the meekness, mercy and peacefulness taught in the Beatitudes. Does it matter to you whether you have or have not?
No and no.
Fuel:
So, when I hear “inerrant”, this is what I think of, and there is a fine line between inerrancy and logical errors.
You mean like the difference between the number of horses Solomon had and the problem of evil?
Thanks for the responses, Diogenes and badchad.
I don’t think that any one group here has a monopoly on smugness. But I do find Fuel’s openness refreshing.
Can someone actually select their beliefs or do they sort of grow from within while being nurtured from without. I might change my mind about certain beliefs over time, but it is not a conscious decision.
So if I understand you correctly you are not all that concerned with the kind of errors of details that one would expect from a work spanning thousands of years and dozens of authors, but rather errors of substance. So for the purposes of this thread the number of animals brought aboard the ark is not important, but, say, the different personalities of God between the Old and New Testaments would be.
Again let me make sure I understand what you’re saying. Consider the Bible’s cavalier attitude toward slavery. Since the Bible is consistent in viewing slavery as an acceptable institution, there is no logical error there, even though today we see slavery as a serious moral wrong. So within the scope of the Bible per se slavery is not a logical error even though when looked at from today’s perspective it would be an error. Is that right?
No, the opposite. I am concerned with any and all errors, logical and otherwise. Knowing about these errors will help me decide whether to hang on to every word in the Bible (like many believers do) or to take the words themselves with a grain of salt and focus more on the big picture.
I’ll address the animal issue later.
Again let me make sure I understand what you’re saying. Consider the Bible’s cavalier attitude toward slavery. Since the Bible is consistent in viewing slavery as an acceptable institution, there is no logical error there, even though today we see slavery as a serious moral wrong. So within the scope of the Bible per se slavery is not a logical error even though when looked at from today’s perspective it would be an error. Is that right? **
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. I believe the Bible teaches that there are some core absolute truths in morality (murder, rape, ect.) but slavery being wrong is not one of them.
Juts to clarify, by logical error, I don’t necessarily mean the way the Bible uses logic, I mean an error in accounting facts or contradictions of fact. Finding an error in logic would be sort of a moot point, because in the Bible it is taught that God supposedly does not limit himself to our logic in his dealings with us.
No, the opposite. I am concerned with any and all errors, logical and otherwise. Knowing about these errors will help me decide whether to hang on to every word in the Bible (like many believers do) or to take the words themselves with a grain of salt and focus more on the big picture.
I’ll address the animal issue later.
Exactly. I believe the Bible teaches that there are some core absolute truths in morality (murder, rape, ect.) but slavery being wrong is not one of them.
Juts to clarify, by logical error, I don’t necessarily mean the way the Bible uses logic, I mean an error in accounting facts or contradictions of fact. Finding an error in logic would be sort of a moot point, because in the Bible it is taught that God supposedly does not limit himself to our logic in his dealings with us.
Fuel, with all due respect, it seems like you’re moving the goal posts. Please define clearly what you would consider to be an “error.” It’s not really fair to ask for a logical contradiction and then say that “God does not use logic.”
Do you want a flat contradiction of fact. Look no further than page one. If you want to say that the creation story is allegorical, how about the flood? There has never been a worldwide flood. That’s a fact. The Bible is wrong.
Much of the archaeological evidence contradicts Biblical claims about historical events. Jericho was a ruin long before Joshua ever came to it. There is no sign in the archaeology that Israel ever existed as the grand, unified kingdom as described in Hebrew scripture.
The gospels are full of contradictions and factual errors. Matthew and Luke have different geneologies for Jesus but even if the genologies were in accord they would still create a logical problem. They are both designed to trace the lineology of Jesus back to David through Joseph…but Joseph wasn’t Jesus’ father if the Virgin Birth is to be believed…so Joseph’s geneology is irrelevant and does not prove that Jesus is from the line of David.
Luke gives us a historical impossibility. He claims that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great and was also born during the Census of Quirinius. The problem is that Quirinius’ census (which was not “of the world,” btw, but only a few local provinces, and which did not incidentally include Galilee) took place in the year 6 CE. Herod died in 4 BCE. The events are ten years apart. If Jesus was born during the reign of Herod he could not have been born during the census. If he was born during the census he could not have been born during the reign of Herod. Does this count as an “error?” If not, what does?
Thank you for playing along, btw.
And one of the easiest to answer.
Genesis 5 indicates that Adam had other sons and daughters as well. Likewise, there is no date on the Cain/Abel story. Obviously it must have occured at some point after other children were born but before Seth was born.
And lest you give me the answer that the Cain/Abel story is written before Genesis 5, I will answer you that the Bible is not written in strict chronilogical order. Many times a subject will be brought up and then finished until it’s conclusion even though other events that are written later happened first. A good example of this is in Esau’s geneaology. Esau’s geneaology and the kings that ruled in Edom are the topic of Genesis 36. The sale of Joseph is the topic of Genesis 37. The first part of 36 deals with Esau’s children and his clans, culminating with a list of kings who ruled in Edom. In no way was this meant to indicate that all those children were born and all those kings ruled and died before the sale of Joseph occured. Rather, the Bible took up the topic of Esau (the previous chapters having dealt with his reunion with Jacob) and then concluded the matter of Esau before going on to the topic of Jacob and his family. Likewise, the Bible brought up the topic of Cain and Abel and then finished it to it’s logical conclusion before going on to other topics relating to Adam and his other children. That does not mean, however, that other daughters could not have been born in the interim, one (or more) of whom Cain married.
Zev Steinhardt
Zev Steinhardt
True enough. But in RedNaxela’s defense, I will submit to you that Orthodox Jews (of whom RedNaxela is one) aren’t Biblical literalists. We acknowledge that a simple reading of the Bible does contain contradictions and can give the wrong impressions. We also have an oral tradition (as codified in the Talmud) to reconcile these contradictions. So, yes, it is true that in one place it says that Joachin was eight when he became king and in another place it says that he was eighteen. On the surface, granted, it is a contradiciton. The two facts are mutually exclusive. But we don’t rely solely on a simple reading of the text. We are not absolute biblical literalists.
Zev Steinhardt
You missed the point of my last post. I agree that my calling it a “logical error” is misleading in the OP. Read my last post again and you will realize that there is a difference between an error in use of logic and an error in fact. I don’t think it feasible to question the logic of a book who claims to be illogical, does it? But, errors in fact are just that, errors. These are what I am talking about.
You are saying that a miracle is impossible. That is an assumption, albeit a reasonable one, but still an assumption. There is not a complete lack of evidence for the flood. Look at the seashell artifacts on the tops of mountains in that area.
Your second sentence there suggests that you are being frivilous and closed minded, just FYI.
You know, now is a good time to provide cites to these claims. These are the types of errors I want to know about and am prepared to acknowledge, given enough proof. (Actually, how do you quantify “grand, unified kingdom” enough to be able to prove it wrong or right?)
Joseph was essentially Jesus’ father… he rose Jesus as his son and was married to his mother. That’s fair enough for me, but apparently not good enough for some other people. See that how you will, but it’s not an error in fact but in judgement.
I only see in 2:1-2 that Luke spoke of a tax by Ceasar Augustus and a reigning of Cyrenius. No mention I can see of Quirinius. (It would help if you could provide the verses). Also, I remember there being a lot of different Herods in this time. Maybe they are being confused with one another? I’ll need a cite on these things too. How sure are you about your sources of this info? Maybe those records are wrong? Just asking, not doubting.
A better reply to his argument is this: The difference in age is not an error in fact. It is an error in translation or weathering of the handwriting. The two words are almost the same, except eighteen has an extra little word tacked onto it. This is a setup for a translational error, not an error of origin.
Everybody knows the story of David and Goliath – the shepherd boy who strikes down the giant warrior with his slingshot. Right?
Check this out:
There’s the classic story, extracted from I Samuel 17. But there are two other references to the death of Goliath (or at least to a giant Philistine).
Apparently discussing the same battle:
And interestingly, the words translated “Lahmi the brother of” in the last passage are “bet’ Lahmi” – “Lahmi of the house of” – and the similarities to “Bethlehem” are evident.
Who was Elhanan ben Jair? (Or was his father Jaare-oregim?) Who did he kill? How come it says David ben Jesse killed Goliath in one place, Elhanan in another, and that Elhanan killed Goliath’s brother rather than Goliath in a third place? And, apparently, both David and Elhanan are from Bethlehem (not a large town, so it says)? Do we have several distinct legends shuffled and mixed here?