Contradictions,inconsistencies and absurdities within the bible.

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
Fear nam Beantann,
Well there is one very obvious alternative explanation which you are conveniently ignoring and which is surely more plausible than the one which you have provided.The various texts could have been (in fact undoubtedly were) written by separate people who had no knowledge of what the other/s had written.Is it not now accepted by Christians that the Pentateuch which was originally ascribed to Moses in fact had several different authors?Anyone who takes the time to read the Pentateuch would accept that it had to have been written by more than one person and this to me seems a perfectly satisfactory explanation for the many blatant contradictions within it and the fact that each writer had no knowledge of what the other had written undermines the notion that the writers received plenary inspiration from God.

Remember what I said about the benefit of the doubt. A literary critic is not to presume ignorance on the part of any author until he can be sure of the author's fallacy. Anything more is literary arrogance. Even the advocates of the documentary hypothesis hold that the redactor of the Pentateuch was a man of literary genius. And I will say it again: he would've had to have been retarded to put blatantly contradictory statements right next to each other. My explanation is entirely plausible, and is endorsed by the text itself. Just accept it and move on.

Interestingly enough, the documentary hypothesis of the Pentateuch (multiple authors named J,E,D, and P) fails miserably under close scrutiny. In the light of archeology and insight into ancient near eastern literary forms, it is clear that the pentateuch was written in the second millenium B.C. rather than the first. It is also a near proven fact that Deuteronomy was written as one contiguous document. The documentary hypothesis was nothing more than an interesting game of begging the question for 19th and early 20th century German scholars who seemed to have a bone to pick with Jewish scriptures. Umberto Cassuto, in his book The Documentary Hypothesis, and M. H. Segal, in his book The Pentateuch--It's Composition and Authorship, meet and beat this theory on all fronts.

It may appear obvious to you that different people wrote the Pentateuch, but that is quite possibly just your bias towards Occidental literary forms speaking. Yes, it is clear that the author(s) of the Pentateuch used other documents as sources for the early history of Israel, and that someone other then Moses attached Moses's obituary to the end of Deuteronomy (duh). However, it is a fact that the Pentateuch was not cobbled together from the works of independent authors who had no knowledge of each other.

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
No,what you have done is engaged in a bit of word play and assigned different meanings to the various religious texts which I cited.But who is to say that your explanation for the discrepancies in Genesis for example has any validity-it is conjecture and the simple straightforward explanation is that the various texts were written at different times by different people.

My conjectures are grounded in the text. Your conjectures are not. The issue of wisdom is a perfect example.

Solomon was known for assigning great importance to the virtue of wisdom. He himself was a very wise man. Then, on one ocassion, he remarked "in much wisdom there is much sadness." You took this sentence out of context and interpreted it to mean "wisdom is a bad thing." However, that interpretation would be out of character with Solomon. If you take Solomon's words literally, without adding your own interpretation, there is no contradiction. Yes, wisdom is desirable. Yes, we should pursue it to the full extent of our abilities. Yes, becoming wiser will often lead you to sorrows that you would have never felt if you had remained ignorant. But is that any reason to stop pursuing wisdom? No.

You can twist words to arrive at meanings which conform to your point of view but you cannot prove that your interpretation is the right one.

No, I read the passages you cite in their proper context and attempt to explain what they mean. You take them out of context and twist them so they bocome contradictory. You should take a lesson from Coleridge and Aristotle, and not apply such arbitrary standards in your efforts at literary criticism.

I do not attempt to undermine your beliefs out of arrogance and I don't have any antipathy to Christians in general-only Christian evangelicals who want to ram their views down other people's throats.I believe that your beliefs should be challenged because many of them rely on falsehoods and if you examined scripture objectively instead of reading into it what you wish were true you would come to accept this fact,but that would require honesty and integrity which are qualities which Christian evangelicals are lacking in.

Granted, my beliefs should be challenged. What is annoying is that you refuse to acknowledge when I have answered back sucessfully.

I am in the process of examining the Bible objectively, and my preliminary conclusion is this: many parts are not meant to be taken literally, but no parts are false.

[ANDY-J2]

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of
their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor
fill the face of the world with cities.
DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the chil-
dren, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers:
every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
A clear and unambiguous contradiction.

I'll get back to you on that one.

[/quote]


Fear nam Beantann,
You provided alternative explanations for the various texts which I cited which while proving satisfactory to you do not completely refute my arguments in particular your reasoning for the various discrepancies in the Pentateuch does not seem satisfactory to me and I will be dealing with that in due course.However you conveniently ignored the above texts which were perhaps the most blatant contradictions out of those which I posted.Do you have an explanation for this glaring discrepancy?

[ANDY-J2]

Originally posted by TomSawyer

Have no fear, Fear, because Andy is like other anti-Christians: he doesn't know what he's talking about, and like them he has become 'Buddhist' because it's the fashionable thing to do. A real Buddhist, on the other hand, I can appreciate.

The favourite Christian ploy-if you can't undermine the arguments of the non-believers cast doubt on their personal integrity.Tell me Mr.Sawyer,where have I ever claimed to be a practising Buddhist?

[ANDY-J2]

Originally posted by TomSawyer

That's my point, Andy, you're NOT a Buddhist. So why do you keep endorsing Buddhism if you do not practise it? Because, like other posers, you don't go the extra mile into 'becoming' a Buddhist: you just talk about it, socially.

I happen to believe that of all the various philosophies I have studied Buddhism provides the most coherent and unambiguous explanation for the reasons why we exist and why suffering is an integral part of our existence.Certainly Buddhas teachings seem less ambiguous than those of Christ about the potential for growth which all humans,not just a select few,possess.I do not however claim to have a comprehensive grasp of all Buddhist teachings and there are after all various different Buddhist sects which encourage different practices.Also there are certain Buddhist philosophies which I have trouble accepting such as the non-existence of a permanent ego,I do believe that all humans have a soul with its own identity,however the Buddhist concept of Atman is not quite the same thing.I am not a poser.I have rejected Christianity and have always believed in reincarnation-therefore I developed an interest in Eastern philosophy.I study Buddhist philosophy and accept much of what it teaches but I do not at present have an inclination to become a practising Buddhist although perhaps at some point in the future when I have gained a deeper understanding of Buddhism that would be something which I may consider.

[BatEl]

Why dont u GUYS, find some GIRLS, and get into a real relationship, then u wont have time 4 all ur longwinded, and ego-stroking postings!Just live & let live No1 once they have formulated, their views. or been brainwashed, into thinking something, has ever been influenced by some1 of oppossing views! Chill out Guys, its gonna b a long hot summer!

[ANDY-J2]

Originally posted by BatEl
Why dont u GUYS, find some GIRLS, and get into a real relationship, then u wont have time 4 all ur longwinded, and ego-stroking postings!Just live & let live No1 once they have formulated, their views. or been brainwashed, into thinking something, has ever been influenced by some1 of oppossing views! Chill out Guys, its gonna b a long hot summer!

BatEl,
You seem to have some kind of fixation with the idea that posting on this discussion forum precludes a man from having a relationship with the opposite sex.I saw you making the same inane assumption about two other members in C'Mon Inn.I spend very little time posting at this forum and I've been in a "real relationship" for several years so wisen up and stop posting a lot of pish.