Biblical contradictions

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I had forgotten you were in another part of the world. Here's an address you may want to check out:
Jan van Riebeeck Primary School
52 Kloof Street
Gardens
Cape Town

I go past there nearly every day, but no, I am not particularly interested in converting them.

The underlying point of what you're driving at is inconsequential. It is a silly little concept game that is patently obvious as to intent.
I was merely pointing out how silly it is to claim the lack of contradiction in either:
a) a hypothetical but non-existent 'true Bible' or
b) all versions and translation of the Bible.
If you find that inconsquential then why did you join the thread?

If you're really interested in the integrity of the canon of Scripture, there are a number of sources that can readily put the matter to rest for you. This isn't what you're looking for, of course, and we both know that.
I would be interested if such a canon existed, but it does not as has become patently obvious.

This is nothing more than a security blanket of justification for your doubt... which is really nothing more than arrogance. You refuse to humble yourself to anything let alone truth.
What does humbling myself have to do with anything? Surely if you have a point to make it will be just as valid even in my arrogance?

If you truly were seeking for the truth, it would become as obvious as the nose on your face--- more so, really.
In other words you cannot explain it so you hide behind the old "your too dumb to see" defense.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I go past there nearly every day, but no, I am not particularly interested in converting them.

The underlying point of what you're driving at is inconsequential. It is a silly little concept game that is patently obvious as to intent.
I was merely pointing out how silly it is to claim the lack of contradiction in either:
a) a hypothetical but n ...[text shortened]... r words you cannot explain it so you hide behind the old "your too dumb to see" defense.[/b]

I was merely pointing out how silly it is to claim the lack of contradiction in either:
a) a hypothetical but non-existent 'true Bible' or
b) all versions and translation of the Bible.
No, you didn't. What you started off attacking is the integrity of the Bible as it specifically relates to so-asserted contradictions. To wit:

At face value, if I take "The Bible" to mean a printed copy in English which is obviously translated from other languages, then I can pick out quite a number of verses which are undeniably contradictory.

To this, I challenged you to provide substantiation of your claim, i.e., the undeniable contradictions.

I would be interested if such a canon existed, but it does not as has become patently obvious.
So declared. Your claim suffers from a complete and total separation from verfiable history.

What does humbling myself have to do with anything?
Knowledge follows humility.

In other words you cannot explain it so you hide behind the old "your too dumb to see" defense.
Explanations are not the requirement here; honesty is.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
To this, I challenged you to provide substantiation of your claim, i.e., the undeniable contradictions.

But there is no need for me to provide any such samples as you already agree that they exist. I asked you:
"Is it your claim that all copies and translations of the Bible are free from contradiciton? "
To which you replied:
"Absolutely not."
Hence you must necessarily agree that said contradictions do exist.
Ooops. I forgot. Logic is not your strong suit.

Knowledge follows humility.
I don't believe you.

Explanations are not the requirement here; honesty is.
Why is honesty a requirement? A requirement for what? And how is playing "the your to dumb to get it" card a case of "being honest"?
In fact what you actually said was:
If you truly were seeking for the truth, it would become as obvious as the nose on your face--- more so, really.
Which tells us that you believe that if I was seeking the truth it would be obvious to me, but since I am not seeking the truth, I will never get it. But surely this means that you wasted your time in this thread as unless you can persuade me to 'seek the truth' I don't have a hope. So all your explanations and arguments so far must be mere posturing or a rather ridiculous attempt to persuade me to seek the truth.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But there is no need for me to provide any such samples as you already agree that they exist. I asked you:
"Is it your claim that all copies and translations of the Bible are free from contradiciton? "
To which you replied:
"Absolutely not."
Hence you must necessarily agree that said contradictions do exist.
Ooops. I forgot. Logic is not your strong ...[text shortened]... t be mere posturing or a rather ridiculous attempt to persuade me to seek the truth.

Hence you must necessarily agree that said contradictions do exist.
You'd do great writing for politicians. Your ability to misapply is splendid. The contradictions of which I spoke are of specific translations which contradict the original languages and/or meaning found within our earliest manuscripts.

I don't believe you.
Why would you?

Why is honesty a requirement? A requirement for what?
To accurately assess the underlying issue. I submit that you are not being honest either in this dialogue, nor to yourself regarding your intents to constantly hang out here.

Which tells us that you believe that if I was seeking the truth it would be obvious to me, but since I am not seeking the truth, I will never get it.
Us? Is there a mouse in your pocket? And, you are correct: only those who seek the truth with their whole heart can ever hope to find it.

But surely this means that you wasted your time in this thread as unless you can persuade me to 'seek the truth' I don't have a hope. So all your explanations and arguments so far must be mere posturing or a rather ridiculous attempt to persuade me to seek the truth.
I would never think that telling the truth is a waste of time. I do think, as I've said before, that some people simply don't care about the truth: they'd rather argue the truth away.

If you're looking for Noah's Ark--- and will only be convinced by such an 'iron-clad example' of truth, you've lost the whole point of faith, of how God sends truth our way.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You'd do great writing for politicians. Your ability to misapply is splendid. The contradictions of which I spoke are of specific translations which contradict the original languages and/or meaning found within our earliest manuscripts.

Surely that therefore means that the specific translations in question contain contradictions? Or are you saying that despite having different and contradictory meanings from the original manuscripts all translations retain an internal consistency? Or are you just incapable of admitting you made a mistake? What happened to the whole "humble yourself" message you were pushing earlier?

To accurately assess the underlying issue. I submit that you are not being honest either in this dialogue, nor to yourself regarding your intents to constantly hang out here.
And I am sure you think you know what my intents are better than I do and are thus going two steps ahead and jumping over what we are actually discussing. Mind reading has its problems you know.
Lets see how well you did with your mind reading. The underlying issue that it was my intent to point out is that some people get so blinded by religion that they make claims that they believe are necessary for their religion and will continue to support them even when it is blatantly clear that they are wrong. You are doing a rather good job at proving my point.

And, you are correct: only those who seek the truth with their whole heart can ever hope to find it.
So what are you trying to achieve?

I would never think that telling the truth is a waste of time.
Why? You have already stated that:
1. If I am not seeking it I wont find it.
2. If I am seeking it I will definitely find it.
So whether you tell the truth or not will have no effect whatsoever on whether or not I find it. So what purpose does it serve?

I do think, as I've said before, that some people simply don't care about the truth: they'd rather argue the truth away.
Yep thats true. You try to argue anything away - even logic.

If you're looking for Noah's Ark--- and will only be convinced by such an 'iron-clad example' of truth, you've lost the whole point of faith, of how God sends truth our way.
I am not looking for Noah's Ark, nor any other 'iron-clad' examples of anything. I am merely pointing out that anyone who makes the claim that "nobody has ever proven the existence of a contradiction in 'the Bible'" is either talking utter nonsense or needs to qualify their claim a bit more.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yawn, stretch, scratches his nose, sigh.....

why would they include their own misfortunes and inadequacy if they as the victors merely wished to justify their actions and propagate their interests? can you think of any reason? think deeply now!

Can't you? Think deeply.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Can't you? Think deeply.

actually i see it like a chess board , there are examples when one immediately, by intuition, knows when a move is correct, others that need to be evaluated and assessed at some length.

Take for example your statement, it is one of those 'moves' that one frequently finds on the spirituality forum, that does not need to be parried, but can simply be ignored as one does an ineffectual move on the chess board, almost rather as one would ignore the whimper of a hound but certainly pay attention to the roar of a lion!

Originally posted by twhitehead
Surely that therefore means that the specific translations in question contain contradictions? Or are you saying that despite having different and contradictory meanings from the original manuscripts all translations retain an internal consistency? Or are you just incapable of admitting you made a mistake? What happened to the whole "humble yourself" message ...[text shortened]... '" is either talking utter nonsense or needs to qualify their claim a bit more.[/b]

Surely that therefore means that the specific translations in question contain contradictions?
They most assuredly do--- they contradict the original sources!

Or are you saying that despite having different and contradictory meanings from the original manuscripts all translations retain an internal consistency?
Now that just wouldn't make any sense, would it.

Or are you just incapable of admitting you made a mistake?
Sometimes, I think it's a mistake to dialogue with you while maintaining any hope of actually having a meaningful conversation. Does that count?

What happened to the whole "humble yourself" message you were pushing earlier?
It's still there. Go back and read it if you don't believe me.

The underlying issue that it was my intent to point out is that some people get so blinded by religion that they make claims that they believe are necessary for their religion and will continue to support them even when it is blatantly clear that they are wrong. You are doing a rather good job at proving my point.
Let's see if I have this straight. What if we were to take out the word "religion" and replace it with "lack of belief." See any similarities to your situation?

So what are you trying to achieve?
I've already addressed that question.

So whether you tell the truth or not will have no effect whatsoever on whether or not I find it. So what purpose does it serve?
We can do nothing against the truth. Our only hope of any impact is to agree with the truth. This is my purpose.

Yep thats true. You try to argue anything away - even logic.
As evidence of my assessment of your thinking, this statement of yours proves my point. In the discussion we began regarding logic (which, by the way, you abandoned after failing to successfully defend your absurd position), nothing within my statements in any way, shape or fashio inferred that I held a position that logic doesn't exist, or that it isn't in some way useful.

I am merely pointing out that anyone who makes the claim that "nobody has ever proven the existence of a contradiction in 'the Bible'" is either talking utter nonsense or needs to qualify their claim a bit more.
All the huffing and puffing, and yet you still haven't given any proof for your claim. Since you make it sound so obvious, why not simply produce the goods and allow others to test the merit of your charge?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
All the huffing and puffing, and yet you still haven't given any proof for your claim. Since you make it sound so obvious, why not simply produce the goods and allow others to test the merit of your charge?

There is absolutely no need for me to give you any proof of my claim as you have already admitted that you fully agree with it.

But I think I agree with you on one point:
Sometimes, I think it's a mistake to dialogue with you while maintaining any hope of actually having a meaningful conversation.

Originally posted by twhitehead
There is absolutely no need for me to give you any proof of my claim as you have already admitted that you fully agree with it.

But I think I agree with you on one point:
[b]Sometimes, I think it's a mistake to dialogue with you while maintaining any hope of actually having a meaningful conversation.[/b]

If it makes you feel better...

Just don't act surprised when you get challenged.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
actually i see it like a chess board , there are examples when one immediately, by intuition, knows when a move is correct, others that need to be evaluated and assessed at some length.

Take for example your statement, it is one of those 'moves' that one frequently finds on the spirituality forum, that does not need to be parried, but can simpl ...[text shortened]... as one would ignore the whimper of a hound but certainly pay attention to the roar of a lion!

So how come you didn't ignore it?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
So how come you didn't ignore it?

actually Bosse i have no will to argue with you, in fact i am feeling somewhat remorseful at my statement. it is as far as i can discern, a type of siege mentality which foments such a reaction, and and a man who reacts in such a way is like a city broken through.

As in chess as in life, our opponents are also allowed to prepare and establish their own strategy, which we may try to circumvent or may be inclined to ignore in the sense that we feel that it is of little consequence in the struggle. it was belittling of me to state that your words were inconsequential and this is why i am remorseful, so hopefully you will accept my apology and not hold it to account.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
actually Bosse i have no will to argue with you, in fact i am feeling somewhat remorseful at my statement. it is as far as i can discern, a type of siege mentality which foments such a reaction, and and a man who reacts in such a way is like a city broken through.

As in chess as in life, our opponents are also allowed to prepare and establish t ...[text shortened]... this is why i am remorseful, so hopefully you will accept my apology and not hold it to account.

😉

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
😉

😀