I don't see any contradiction there. The scripture as it is given, being inspired by God, is infallible. We are talking about the Bible, the translation of which isn't inspired and fallible. Though the Bible is good enough to do what Paul suggests in the verses you gave.
-
Features
Skeptic's Challenge
- Thread starter DLH
- Start date
I don't see any contradiction there. The scripture as it is given, being inspired by God, is infallible. We are talking about the Bible, the translation of which isn't inspired and fallible. Though the Bible is good enough to do what Paul suggests in the verses you gave.
That would depend upon the legitimacy of the 10,000 reasons. For starters, the Bible doesn't teach hell. Or literal torture for eternity. And some who are resurrected to eternal happiness were [ETA will have] never so much as [been] introduced to the historical Jesus Christ.
Last edited:
beero1000
Veteran Member
Why bother with quibbles about minor details? The bible revolves around the existence of a deity that we have no reason to believe actually exists.
Prove it. How is it scientifically inaccurate? Not that that means anything to me.
Ford
Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2010
- Messages
- 7,235
- Location
- Freedomland
- Basic Beliefs
- Just don't knock on my door on a Saturday Morning
So the "Bible" is fallible, but the "Scripture" is infallible.
But if someone challenges you on an inconsistency in the former, you'll step right up to the plate and prove that it can't possibly be wrong.
This is going to be endlessly entertaining.
But if someone challenges you on an inconsistency in the former, you'll step right up to the plate and prove that it can't possibly be wrong.
This is going to be endlessly entertaining.
I'm trying to think . . . what scientific paper was that conclusion drawn in? What reason do you have not to believe he actually exists? What is he, in fact?
Why don't you stop assuming what I'm all about and how my most intimate desires is to waste my time mind fucking you and present an inconsistency to test your theory?
beero1000
Veteran Member
Two can play that game.
Who said anything about it being a scientific conclusion? Who said anything about it being a "he"?
Betcha I can successfully refute any claimed inaccuracies in the Harry Potter books too. "What ifs" and "That really means" make that easy enough. Not being able to absolutely disprove something doesn't imply that we should believe it to be true...
Ford
Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2010
- Messages
- 7,235
- Location
- Freedomland
- Basic Beliefs
- Just don't knock on my door on a Saturday Morning
Why don't you present an inconsistency yourself?
You've copped to the Bible being fallible. You've said there are "problems" with it. Yet the premise of your OP is, in effect, "tell me what's wrong with the Bible, and I'll tell you why you're wrong."
You've already admitted your premise is flawed. I challenge you to challenge yourself.
Why is this so hard to understand?
I asked the skeptic to present any problems they have with the Bible. Spurious scriptures, copyist errors and contradictions mostly having to do with the numerical exist. That I have already stated. Just because I challenge you to do this doesn't mean it can't be done.
I did also mention historical and scientific inaccuracies, and I stand by that, but that isn't to say that I think that the Bible and science always agree, it is that when they do I trust the Bible over science. But you have to keep a couple things in mind. 1. Science and history are not always accurate. For example, you can argue the historical existence of Jesus because there are only a few well known historical references to him and these are spurious. What does that say about Jesus. Almost nothing, but what does it say about historical accuracy itself?
And, there are also a couple not so well known historical references of Jesus Christ that are accepted by scholars as authentic. Again. Because the scholars agree they are authentic are they? Maybe. Maybe not. These things are only for consideration.
My strength in this thread is that most skeptics don't know a fraction of what they think they do that is anywhere near accurate.
Give my your criticism of Genesis 1 and I will refute it. One at a time, though, you are not the only one. I am only one.
Okay. I propose to you that the headmaster of Hogwarts in the Harry Potter Series is an old wizard who's name is Gandalf. He rides a white horse who's name is Shadowfax.
Dispute that.
I already have. Spurious scripture John 7:53–8:11. Here is three more. Mark 16:9-20 / John 5:4 / 1 John 5:7.
And you won't do it. Isn't that ridiculous?
[Sigh] I might as well ask the cat.
Just challenge me.
Ford
Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2010
- Messages
- 7,235
- Location
- Freedomland
- Basic Beliefs
- Just don't knock on my door on a Saturday Morning
beero1000
Veteran Member
What a intricate hyper-textual cluster fuck!
I see the SAB there. I responded to something in the area of 400 pages before it's owner, Steve Wells and I had an inevitable falling out and he removed all of my links, so I removed all of the SAB references on my site.
Here is my response to the SAB's book of Revelation. All chapters 1-22 which I posted on the SAB forum.
dystopian
Veteran Member
Let's see. Where to even begin. I'll pick Historical Accuracies for 200.
Even though there's way more than 200 of them... but I suppose we'll have to start somewhere.
Let's start with a simple one:
Why did it take the Israelites 40 years to cross the desert to Canaan, when this journey would only have taken a few weeks on foot even back then? Also, and this is breaking the rules of your OP a little, but deal with it; why does the bible mention them passing near the land of the Phillistines... even though the Phillistines didn't yet exist and wouldn't exist for hundreds of years? That's a pretty big historical fuckup that can't be explained in the bible's favor except by desperately insisting the archeologists must've gotten it wrong.
How convenient. Any time the bible is in error, it's "theological" not "scriptural" (which is just a semantic difference), or a "misinterpretation."
Must be nice having such an instant "not a problem" button.
Even though there's way more than 200 of them... but I suppose we'll have to start somewhere.
Let's start with a simple one:
Why did it take the Israelites 40 years to cross the desert to Canaan, when this journey would only have taken a few weeks on foot even back then? Also, and this is breaking the rules of your OP a little, but deal with it; why does the bible mention them passing near the land of the Phillistines... even though the Phillistines didn't yet exist and wouldn't exist for hundreds of years? That's a pretty big historical fuckup that can't be explained in the bible's favor except by desperately insisting the archeologists must've gotten it wrong.
How convenient. Any time the bible is in error, it's "theological" not "scriptural" (which is just a semantic difference), or a "misinterpretation."
Must be nice having such an instant "not a problem" button.
