Originally posted by NemesioI'm sure such a thought would not be allowed to enter Freaky's "mind", but it is consistent with the formulation as he expressed it.
It would be interesting to know if FreakyKBH intended this. I, like Scottishinnz, understood
option #2 to be that we had a flawed understanding of the Bible's (perfect) content and
thought of the 'third' option posited.
Alas, Scottishinnz never seems to leave his computer and beat me to posting it. 😉
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioCan you fathom a scientific advance so incontrovertible that you would reject a literal element
I don't know. That's why I asked. And, since you returned an unintelligible reply, I'll ask it
again:
Can you fathom a scientific advance so incontrovertible that you would reject a literal element
of Scripture (on any topic: creation, the flood, evolution, whatever)?
This is a simple 'yes' or 'no' question.
My answer to this one is 'yes.' What is yours?
Nemesio
of Scripture (on any topic: creation, the flood, evolution, whatever)?
This is a simple 'yes' or 'no' question.
My answer to this one is 'yes.' What is yours?
The assumption here is that science would be able to produce some sort of 'proof' for the fallibility of Scripture. How is that supposed to happen? Science (in its many fields) is a discipline extremely dependent upon observation. Scripture (with a few exceptions) is about history. Insofar as I can tell, the only disciplines which are able to offer any insight to the claims of the Bible are archaeology, linguistics, psychology and anthropology.
There are those who insist on trying to make a nine inch foot fit in a six inch shoe, but the truth remains, there are no biblical claims which can be contradicted by science. Despite assertions otherwise, the Bible gives no age to the earth, save "ancient."
That being said, some folks have attempted to use the mentioned disciplines to 'prove' the Bible fallible, going back now several hundred years. Some new linguistic theory here, some archaeology find there has--- at first blush--- seemingly offered "incontrovertible" evidence that the Bible was wrong.
At the first swipe of challenge you would expect the Bible to fold under such pressure, if indeed it was built on a house of cards. Well, several hundred 'significant' challenges later, the Bible still stands and the wannabes keep trying. Challenges ranging from whether Jesus even existed to the Bible's assertion that all languages originated from one tongue.
What has been solidified in all of the advances of science is: not only do we usually get it wrong right out of the gate, but we usually keep it wrong for large stretches of time, owing to our obstinance and arrogance. In the history of science, there are many who have used it as a periscope into the workings of God. There are many more who have used it to discount God.
The latter have been crying 'wolf' for many years, and the town keeps running out to protect against imagined ravages. However, at what point can one conclude the wolf does not exist?
At one point, I foolishly considered the Bible fallible and could readily point out its seeming inconsistencies and outright contradictions, in addition to the glaring incongruities with 'known facts.' I put it to the acid test and found the acid wanting. While I am grateful for the attempts by some to disprove the Bible (for once the evidence is properly weighed, it merely solidifies our trust in the veracity of Scripture), after some point, ones tolerance for humoring the wolf-criers is diminished.
So the real question is: is science able to produce an advance so incontrovertible that it would prove the Bible wrong? History has shown that the answer is 'no,' despite several hundred years of attempts. But some, like you, have not given up hope. My hope is placed otherwise.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo, every single one of the following alleged 377 contradictions in the bible is falsely alleged?
At one point, I foolishly considered the Bible fallible and could readily point out its seeming inconsistencies and outright contradictions, in addition to the glaring incongruities with 'known facts.' I put it to the acid test and found the acid wanting. While I am grateful for the attempts by some to disprove the Bible (for once the evidence is properly ...[text shortened]... y of Scripture), after some point, ones tolerance for humoring the wolf-criers is diminished.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
2 edits
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeHow about we start with the very first charge of 'contradiction,' according to the skeptic website. They claim 2 Sam 23:6 contradicts 2 Chron 11:11. Let's take a look at those two verses.
So, every single one of the following alleged 377 contradictions in the bible is falsely alleged?
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
2 Sam 23:6
"But evil men are all to be cast aside like thorns,
which are not gathered with the hand."
1 Chron. 11:11
"this is the list of David's mighty men:
Jashobeam, a Hacmonite, was chief of the officers; he raised his spear against three hundred men, whom he killed in one encounter."
Where, exactly, is the contradiction between the statements made in these two verses? Perhaps the skeptics' annotation went a bit too far? More than likely, they are wishing to (imprecisely) reference 2 Sam 23:8, as follows:
"These [be] the names of the mighty men whom David had: The Tachmonite that sat in the seat; cheif among the captains; the same [was] Adino the Exnite: [he lift up his spear] against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time."
Of course, they would rather reference a poor translation, such as the NIV, which offers very little in the way of clarification and leaves the reader with the impression that the record is talking about the same person (Jashobeam) as killing 300 in one place and 800 in another. In fact, however, the record (when allowed to speak for itself) speaks of two different people, thus offering no contradiction whatsoever.
Amusingly, the skeptic website gets the reference wrong, and even when we give them the benefit of the doubt (which they mysteriously refuse to grant the Bible) and view the intended verses aright, the skeptics still come out looking like boneheads. And that's just the first charge!
Originally posted by FreakyKBHTwo different guys and they're BOTH "chief among the captains/officers". You nailed that one!
How about we start with the very [b]first charge of 'contradiction,' according to the skeptic website. They claim 2 Sam 23:6 contradicts 2 Chron 11:11. Let's take a look at those two verses.
2 Sam 23:6
"But evil men are all to be cast aside like thorns,
which are not gathered with the hand."
2 Chron. 11:11
"this is the list of David' ...[text shortened]... first charge out of the gate is so off, is it profitable to entertain the other 376?[/b]
Originally posted by no1marauderAs customary, you read a little and understand a lot less. Adino was head of the three, the three being chief among the captains. You're not to blame, however: blinded by your fright.
Two different guys and they're BOTH "chief among the captains/officers". You nailed that one!
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo this means: Jashobeam, a Hacmonite, was chief of the officers
As customary, you read a little and understand a lot less. Adino was head of the three, the three being chief among the captains. You're not to blame, however: blinded by your fright.
That he was subordinate to one of the other officers? I really have to get that Secret Decoder Ring.
Originally posted by no1marauderLet's make it easier still for you. Top line is the transliterated Hebrew, bottom line is the parsing of the same.
So this means: Jashobeam, a Hacmonite, was chief of the officers
That he was subordinate to one of the other officers? I really have to get that Secret Decoder Ring.
ale shmuth egbrim ashr ldlud ishtb bshtbth thchkmni
these names-of the-masters who to-David Josheb Basshebeth Tachikemonite
rash eshishi eua odinu eotznu of shmne mauth chll
head-of the three he Adino the-Eznite on eight hundreds mortally-wounded
bphom ahcid
in-time one...
That should clear it up a little for you, but then again...
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe old, reliable "Bad Translation" defense!
Let's make it easier still for you. Top line is the transliterated Hebrew, bottom line is the parsing of the same.
ale shmuth egbrim ashr ldlud ishtb bshtbth thchkmni
these names-of the-masters who to-David Josheb Basshebeth Tachikemonite
rash eshishi eua odinu eotznu of shmne mauth chll
head-of the three he Adino the-Eznite on eight h ...[text shortened]... ]bphom ahcid[/i]
in-time one...
That should clear it up a little for you, but then again...
EDIT: Oddly enough, Jewish Hebrew scholars regard "Adino the Eznite" as the bad translation:
In II Sam. xxiii. 8 et seq., in which the names of David's heroes are recorded, occur two mysterious words, (according to the ḳeri), which came to be regarded as the designation of one of the heroes. They are thus interpreted in the Septuagint, which was followed by numerous other versions. The two words clearly represent a textual corruption for —that is, "brandishing his spear," as the parallel passage (I Chron. xi. 11) correctly reads—and instead of being a proper name, are merely descriptive of Yosheb Bashshebet (a euphemism for Esh-baal) the Tachmonite, mentioned at the beginning of the verse.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=805&letter=A
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSince that link refutes your point and it is one by experts on ancient Hebrew, I think I'll stick with it. Care to try to dispute it by some other way than holding your breath till you turn blue?
Actually your frantic search provided you with the exact opposite of what the most reliable texts reveal. Keep searching, though. You're bound to get somewhere.
Originally posted by no1marauderOddly enough, you quote only what supports your soup de jour. Given the choice between two paragraphs on the link provided, you quote but one, leaving the second of the two (which offers a completely different take on the passages) languishing in the shadows.
Since that link refutes your point and it is one by experts on ancient Hebrew, I think I'll stick with it. Care to try to dispute it by some other way than holding your breath till you turn blue?
Oh well. That just harmonizes with your usual MO. Kinda like your characterization of "experts" and "Jewish scholars" when citing the work of but two people. Gotta hand it to you, though: 'two' is plural!