07 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau K=================================
Re-reading though what the original poster and Jaywill have written, I think what they might mean by 'logic' is 'the faculty of human reasoning'. They are not saying that the laws of deduction and validity are in some way inapplicable to the Bible, but that the human mind cannot really penetrate the mysteries of the bible without some help from God.
Of ...[text shortened]... nce no logic would be applicable to judge a contradiction. But it would just be meaningless.
Of course, if they do really believe that the Bible is somehow beyond logic, then they cannot possibly make a coherent statement about it. If they interpret a single sentence to mean Px, then it must be equally valid to say not-Px. Which we both see as silly. Sure, no contradiction would exist since no logic would be applicable to judge a contradiction. But it would just be meaningless.
=======================================
Here is the logic and reasoning I need to use.
Each day I have sinned. The record of sins before God is accumulating. He invites me to use proper reasoning:
"Come now and let us reason together, says Jehovah. Though your sins are like scarlet, they will be as white as snow; Though they are as red as crimson, they will be like wool." (Isa. 1:18)
This wonderful Man Jesus says that He pours out His life for sinners on His cross that they may be forgiven of all sins forever.
The reasoning that I need is to consider the offer of Christ. Not just anyone can make such an offer. The character and deeds of this Man command that I pay attention.
To whom will I ultimately be responsible ? It is to God. Should I reason that there will be no accounting for my transgressions ? Should I reason that there will be no record and no rememberance before God?
I take the invitation from God to reason with Him. He has a plan that if I receive Christ, my sins are judged in Him upon His cross. God looks upon me then as if I had never sinned.
But this is not all. He can empower me to live a life pleasing to God and man by letting His Spirit permeate my soul.
Reason calls for me to seriously consider Christ's claim. The gift of righteousness is mine for the asking. He will not force me. And it certainly seems to my benefit.
What do I have to lose? The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ. He appears trustworthy and faithful throughout the pages of the Bible. He seems able to overcome all manner of obstacles in the 1600 years of history covered in the Bible.
His prophecies, many of them, proved to be true.
There is strong reason to believe that what He says is going to take place with all men indeed WILL take place.
He loves me. It is reasonable for me to trust Him at least some. It is reasonable for me to talk to God about the matter with an honest heart.
08 Jul 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasThere have been many posts and discussions about the Bible being untrustworthy due to many inconsistencies, hence untrue and therefore - well, good advice at best, but certainly not God's Word.
I just say that the bible is illogical.
Or I say there are contradictions in the bible.
In either way I say that the bible is confusing. Building a religion aout of something this confusing is stupid. Explaining the bible as it would be all true is nonsensical.
My position is that ALL inconsistencies in the Bible can be explained logically, hence there is NO reason to believe that the Bible is not trustworthy - especially in giving us a picture as to how things really are
A simple example: In the gospels there are various descriptions as to who got first to the tomb after the resurrection - Mary or the disciples. Answer: these were eye witness accounts! Ask any lawyer or cop what "eye witnesses" say after an accident: they can't even agree on the make or colour of the car! That doesn't mean there was no accident. So all that these "discrepancies" in the resurrection story tell me is that here we have a realistic description of an actual event by several different people. The fact that they disagree actually establishes authenticity!! If it was doctored or fake, surely the author would correct such obvious errors.
Another one mentioned in this thread: The command THOU SHALT NOT KILL, is followed by many instructions to kill everybody, e.g. the Amalekites. Here it is clear that we have a translation error - the commandment clearly says THOU SHALT DO NO MURDER. This matter has ad nauseum been used by people against capital punishment, but that is another debate...
Similarly every single "discrepancy" and "error" in the Bible can be examined and explained. In fact (he says humbly) my grandfather, Ernst Modersohn, wrote a book in German about "100 Fehler und Dunkle Stellen in der Bibel" (100 errors and dark passages in the Bible)
Bottom line - if the Bible were not internally consistent and absolutely logical, I would have no part of it. As it is, it is my most precious resource and friend. (Psalm 119)
08 Jul 09
Originally posted by CalJustYes, genocides are cool - thankfully there is no law against them. What a buzz-kill that would be.
Another one mentioned in this thread: The command THOU SHALT NOT KILL, is followed by many instructions to kill everybody, e.g. the Amalekites. Here it is clear that we have a translation error - the commandment clearly says THOU SHALT DO NO MURDER.
The murderer's problem is that he is not ambitious enough. If he killed more people, preferably of the same race, and did it in God's name, he would be off the hook.
You have ironed out an 'inconsistency' in the bible - but at what price?
08 Jul 09
Originally posted by SwissGambit1. No they are not cool.
Yes, genocides are cool - thankfully there is no law against them. What a buzz-kill that would be.
The murderer's problem is that he is not ambitious enough. If he killed more people, preferably of the same race, and did it in God's name, he would be off the hook.
You have ironed out an 'inconsistency' in the bible - but at what price?
2. No he's too ambitious already, if you can do it in God's name, maybe in your eyes.
08 Jul 09
Originally posted by daniel581. What's even cooler is forcing their young women to marry you after you kill the rest of their family. Especially if they're hot.
1. No they are not cool.
2. No he's too ambitious already, if you can do it in God's name, maybe in your eyes.
2. If you can convince enough people you're doing it in God's name, it does not matter if you actually hear him or not.
09 Jul 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThis is what I said: The fact that they disagree actually establishes authenticity!! If it was doctored or fake, surely the author would correct such obvious errors.
There you have it, folks. You can shove a camel through the eye of a needle.
What a wonderful example of selective quotation! Did you really not get the point, or do you chose to be misleading?
Tell me, what do YOU do with conflicting statements by witnesses after an accident? Do you then dismiss the entire incident because they don't agree?
Shame on you for this cheap shot!
😕😠😕
09 Jul 09
Originally posted by SwissGambit1. No that's not cool either.
1. What's even cooler is forcing their young women to marry you after you kill the rest of their family. Especially if they're hot.
2. If you can convince enough people you're doing it in God's name, it does not matter if you actually hear him or not.
2. It matters to God.
09 Jul 09
Originally posted by CalJustWhat kind of evidence, in your opinion, indicates that written accounts are unreliable?
This is what I said: [b]The fact that they disagree actually establishes authenticity!! If it was doctored or fake, surely the author would correct such obvious errors.
What a wonderful example of selective quotation! Did you really not get the point, or do you chose to be misleading?
Tell me, what do YOU do with conflicting statements by witn ...[text shortened]... the entire incident because they don't agree?
Shame on you for this cheap shot!
😕😠😕[/b]
10 Jul 09
Originally posted by CalJustYet your explanation that followed that, more or less admitted that the conclusion that it was "not Gods word" was an accurate conclusion as you fully admit that the Bible contains eye witness accounts that are not accurate (and hence at least in part 'not true'😉. So at best some parts of the Bible are only Gods Word inasmuch as God is reporting on eyewitness accounts.
There have been many posts and discussions about the Bible being untrustworthy due to many inconsistencies, hence untrue and therefore - well, good advice at best, but certainly not God's Word.
My position is that ALL inconsistencies in the Bible can be explained logically, hence there is NO reason to believe that the Bible is not trustworthy - especially in giving us a picture as to how things really are
The fact that they disagree actually establishes authenticity!! If it was doctored or fake, surely the author would correct such obvious errors. Except that 'doctored or fake' are not the only other alternatives so your argument does not hold up. There are plenty of other scenarios in which there are non-authentic stories with different versions of 'eye witness accounts'. I have no problem with you claiming that the Bible is authentic, nor do I believe the disagreements prove that the main events were not authentic, but your claim that authenticity has been established (or even indicated) by disagreements is quite clearly false.
Similarly every single "discrepancy" and "error" in the Bible can be examined and explained.
But what constitutes and 'explanation'? You have already used 'the witnesses were unreliable' and 'the translator got it wrong' which surely could cover just about anything. I am sure if you add in 'the writer made a mistake' and 'the copyist got it wrong', you could explain away anything. But then of course the Book in front of us has no guarantee of having any validity at all.
Bottom line - if the Bible were not internally consistent and absolutely logical, I would have no part of it. As it is, it is my most precious resource and friend. (Psalm 119)
And for this very reason you will reject any evidence to the contrary however blatantly obvious it might be.
10 Jul 09
Originally posted by CalJustI'm not a magistrate, so I don't have much to do with witnesses to accidents. But if the eye-witness accounts contradicted each other, they wouldn't be of much use in court except to establish that 'something happened'. Of course, the 'eye witnesses' (LOL) that you refer to aren't available for cross-examination, so your analogy is just a waste of time.
Tell me, what do YOU do with conflicting statements by witnesses after an accident? Do you then dismiss the entire incident because they don't agree?
Do you believe in the Angels of Mons?
10 Jul 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitOK, here are a few:
What kind of evidence, in your opinion, indicates that written accounts are [b]unreliable?[/b]
1) When the ink they used had not been invented at the date the text is supposed to have been written
2) When the person who "saw" the events is later proven to have been blind
3) When the writer is known to be a pathological liar.
4)....... Use your imagination, there must be a million more reasons!
What's your point??
Do you not concede my basic premise that it is a well-known fact that eye-witness accounts of the same event differ? And that this does not detract from the fact that the event actually happened??