|
|
Post by captainbryce on Aug 11, 2017 22:39:19 GMT
The whole works vs. faith controversy is one of the bigger disagreements between Protestant and Catholic theology. Both positions are supported by the Bible. This is a contradiction, but as usual, one gets around it via interpretations. And in this case, the disagreement isn't as big as either Protestants or Catholics make it out to be: Catholics believe both faith and works matter - but of course they aren't going to accept that doing the right thing for the wrong reasons - eg. to boast - is going to net you brownie points. After all, as with everything else, it's the thought that counts. Protestants, on the other hand, believe that faith is all-important. But, they also believe that a person of true faith will be inspired by the Holy Spirit to do good works, and I don't think Catholics would disagree.. In other words, one's faith is reflected in one's works. So having faith but not doing good works would be a contradiction in terms. Not necessarily... Romans 4:5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 12, 2017 10:21:29 GMT
If you want actual, doctrinal contradictions, try "saved by faith" vs "saved by works" Romans 10:11-13 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” Directly contradicts: Matthew 7:21-23 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ Or... Ephesians 2:8-9 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. Directly contradicts: James 2:14, 17 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. Or... John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. Directly contradicts: Romans 2:6-7 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. The Bible does not contain "inconsistencies" any more than most things in life today. Your own rules about murder and killing or no more clear than the Bible and require professionals to analyze them. Does a child of eleven decide whether a person on trial is guilty of murder? Does that child decide what punishment is appropriate? Do the twelve adults on the jury decide those things without professional guidance from lawyers regarding the complexities of law? Now do you understand that the "inconsistencies" you see are just complexities over your childish mind? Your own laws are not decided by amateurs or children using just one book, why should God's laws be decided that way? The contradiction concerning "works" can be resolved. The verse from Romans means to call on the Lord "in earnest." There is a natural assumption that if you "call on" the Lord, you agree with the Lord about what are appropriate responses to many of life's problems and questions and will act accordingly or not interfere at the very least. That verse does not say, nor does it imply, that any behavior whatsoever is acceptable for a person who truly believes, in earnest (funny word!!!) in the Lord. The verse from Matthew merely makes it clear that not all behavior is acceptable (Duh). This view is supported elsewhere. Read 1 John 4:1 "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." Do you still think there are "inconsistencies"? Then you are mentally retarded. Of course many of us have actually met people who believe that all anyone has to do is believe in "Jesus," and nothing else matters. The serious problem with that attitude is that it does not provide any assistance whatsoever deciding "what Jesus what do" in any particular situation and is identical to having no moral code whatsoever. "Jesus" is just a word. The word has some meaning or it is just gibberish. Believing in gibberish might not save your soul.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 12, 2017 10:29:27 GMT
I think I've heard the explanation that in the orginal language the word used for the 10 commandments was more like "murder" than "kill". Unlike some Christian apologetics, this seems reasonable to me (at least from a consistency standpoint). I am familiar with that explanation, though I still don't understand why god wanted the Canaanites killed (not murdered). I know there is a bunch more inconsistencies; perhaps I'm hoping in vain that other atheists know some of them. My original reason for becoming atheist had nothing to do with the inconsistencies of the bible, so I am not well versed, as it were. I was just curious as to what others had noticed. That's not an inconsistency simply because you didn't know it. This is also another problem with ones stating inconsistency. They haven;t read the thing that they claim to be inconsistent. They often simply regurgitate it from other sources.
They were enemies of god's people that took over the land owned or promised to their ancestors. From the very beginning, the Canaanites tried to draw first blood which verified the animosity between the two groups. I'm not sure why people, in an effort to force an inconsistency, pretend that the two groups simply weren't two warring factions. It's all well and good to think that all killing is murder (Who cares), but it's dishonest to think that [nearly] every nation on the planet aren't murderers then and yet they all have laws that both allow killing in war and forbidding it among citizens. For some reason, those standards are consistent?
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 12, 2017 10:44:39 GMT
This isn't a contradiction.
No one had to do anything or could do anything to be saved. Jesus' sacrifice has the ability to save all of mankind and this opportunity was a gift.
Paul even makes it clear that the context is concerning gentiles who had no shot of joining israel simply on the basis of circumcision, but can freely join Christianity.
James is merely saying that faith is synonymous with action. Otherwise, it is merely belief. in fact james 2 has one of my favorite lines about how weak simply having belief is:
For that matter it has a good analogy of how having faith autmatically moves those with faith to do something.
James isn't making a condition for salvation, he is explaining what righteous people would automatically do if they followed God.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 12, 2017 10:57:24 GMT
In dismissing a lot of inconsistencies, I have found that the onconsistency often develops on the basis of not reading the whole chapter. This means that usually an inconsistent becomes consistent by reading the first verses of a chapter rather than hopping around. There are without a doubt things that are not answered in Scripture. To thow a bone at a true puzzler, one just has to look to david's census for example. There could be reasons for it, but without an actual answer, people could make a very valid argument that God killed thousands simply because david wanted to count his people. There could be months of [fake] outrage. Threads with 0 replies from people like me or maybe something that is all theory (That would probably me actually since I have one obviously...). It would be GLORIOUS!!!! Instead we routinely get that people in the 21st century don;t know the difference between killing an enemy and murdering your neighbor. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Aug 12, 2017 12:25:31 GMT
The Bible does not contain "inconsistencies" any more than most things in life today. Your own rules about murder and killing or no more clear than the Bible and require professionals to analyze them. Does a child of eleven decide whether a person on trial is guilty of murder? Does that child decide what punishment is appropriate? Do the twelve adults on the jury decide those things without professional guidance from lawyers regarding the complexities of law? This has nothing to do with the presence or absence of inconsistencies in the case. Or maybe they're just inconsistencies. If a text seems to contradict itself, and needs interpretation in order to be sorted out, then you have an inconsistency. Objection: assumes facts not in evidence. It has by no means been established that the rules listed in the Bible represent "God's laws". We haven't even established that a "God" exists, or even what a "God" is, let alone what laws this "God" would have - if it would even have laws at all. What we do know is that the Bible was written by human hands, with nothing to indicate anything other than human ideas. You also assume that captainbryce is a child, but this we know is not the case. Your insults will not be accepted as evidence. The fact that it needs to be resolved in the first place indicates an inconsistency. "Maybe it should be read like this, in which case the different verses are not in conflict with each other anymore." Yes, maybe - but then again, maybe not. How do you know which way it should be read? If you go by the principle that it should always be read in such a way as to not contradict either itself or scientific knowledge, why then there's scarcely a book in existence that couldn't be construed to be divine, using the same principle. Sometimes books are simply mistaken. The Bible is no exception. There is no limit to the mental gymnastics some people will undertake, however, to avoid that conclusion with their favourite book. For example, when was Jesus born - when Quirinius was governor in Syria, or while Herod still lived? Why did Matthew attribute a prophecy to the wrong prophet? And why did Mary not name her son Immanuel, according to prophecy? The funny thing is, most stalwart Christians will reply something along the lines of, "It's so simple and obvious, duh" - but different Christians will have different "obvious" explanations to the same contradictions. That was not a very nice thing to say. It wasn't even a very mature thing to say, which is ironic seeing as in the same post you accused him of being childish.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Aug 12, 2017 13:27:22 GMT
This isn't a contradiction. No one had to do anything or could do anything to be saved. Jesus' sacrifice has the ability to save all of mankind and this opportunity was a gift. And yet, it IS a contradiction because if it is truly only a "gift", then the words of James regarding the necessity of works become entirely meaningless at best (a straight up lie at worst). I'm aware of that. None of this addresses the fact that James insists that works ARE in fact necessary for salvation. I know, but as I also pointed out, Romans 4:5 directly contradicts that! You're missing my point. That's all well and good EXCEPT that it is completely invalidated by Romans 4:5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.Either faith without works is dead (James 2:14), OR faith without works is credited as righteousness (Romans 4:5). Both positions cannot be true at the same time, which is why the bible contradicts itself here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 12, 2017 14:30:53 GMT
... There is no limit to the mental gymnastics some people will undertake ... (emphasis added) So I've noticed. To be terribly cliché, there's a lot of that going around.
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Aug 12, 2017 16:59:39 GMT
The Bible does not contain "inconsistencies" any more than most things in life today. Your own rules about murder and killing or no more clear than the Bible and require professionals to analyze them. Does a child of eleven decide whether a person on trial is guilty of murder? Does that child decide what punishment is appropriate? Do the twelve adults on the jury decide those things without professional guidance from lawyers regarding the complexities of law? This has nothing to do with the presence or absence of inconsistencies in the case. Or maybe they're just inconsistencies. If a text seems to contradict itself, and needs interpretation in order to be sorted out, then you have an inconsistency. Objection: assumes facts not in evidence. It has by no means been established that the rules listed in the Bible represent "God's laws". We haven't even established that a "God" exists, or even what a "God" is, let alone what laws this "God" would have - if it would even have laws at all. What we do know is that the Bible was written by human hands, with nothing to indicate anything other than human ideas. You also assume that captainbryce is a child, but this we know is not the case. Your insults will not be accepted as evidence. The fact that it needs to be resolved in the first place indicates an inconsistency. "Maybe it should be read like this, in which case the different verses are not in conflict with each other anymore." Yes, maybe - but then again, maybe not. How do you know which way it should be read? If you go by the principle that it should always be read in such a way as to not contradict either itself or scientific knowledge, why then there's scarcely a book in existence that couldn't be construed to be divine, using the same principle. Sometimes books are simply mistaken. The Bible is no exception. There is no limit to the mental gymnastics some people will undertake, however, to avoid that conclusion with their favourite book. For example, when was Jesus born - when Quirinius was governor in Syria, or while Herod still lived? Why did Matthew attribute a prophecy to the wrong prophet? And why did Mary not name her son Immanuel, according to prophecy? The funny thing is, most stalwart Christians will reply something along the lines of, "It's so simple and obvious, duh" - but different Christians will have different "obvious" explanations to the same contradictions. That was not a very nice thing to say. It wasn't even a very mature thing to say, which is ironic seeing as in the same post you accused him of being childish. I have an additional perspective - that of a proofreader. The Bible has been translated, collated, edited for over 2,000 years, it would be unusual if much of the original meaning was still there. And then there is the proofreader - perhaps he was tired that day, his eyes blurry, and he missed a typo. Some bibles are know for their typos, and collected because of their typos; I can't name any off the top of my head but I am sure a simple google search would pop up some examples. Then there is the possibility of a scribe or printer willfully changing something.
|
|
|
|
Post by fatpaul on Aug 13, 2017 9:58:54 GMT
It's the textual inconsistencies and anachronisms that gave rise to the documentary hypothesis: the Torah (Pentateuch) is a redacted sourced collection of various hypothetical texts. An example of an anachronism: Then we have these from the Nevi’im (Prophets): Given that the Torah was supposedly written by Moses at a time before the incident mentioned in Joshua and Judges, it’s puzzling why Abram would be going to any town called Dan and not Lesham or Laish. It’s thought that the Genesis story was written by some later anonymous author referred to as the J source (Jahwe - Germanic rendering of YHWH). There are other anachronisms in the Torah such as the mention of camels given no evidence of them being beasts of burden so early, or the mention of the Philistines in Genesis given that they didn’t appear in Canaan until after the invasions of the Sea Peoples. As too are mentions of Edomite kings and Abraham being from Ur of the Chaldeans (or is it Harran?!) Even the use of linen breaches by priests in Exodus and Leviticus may imply not being wrote prior the Persian era. According to the documentary hypothesis, the textual inconsistencies in the story of the flood are due to two sources being interpolated by some redactor (a doublet). The Torah is littered with these doublets whose sources can be separated. Below from Genesis 6-8, I have extracted both J and P (Priestly) sources into separate stories with chapter and verse numbers removed. J source: P source: When the sources are separated, the inconsistencies become differences: the days of flood (40/150 days); birds sent out (dove/raven); pairing of animals (seven pairs/one pair). The documentary hypothesis has it's critics and some of the exegesis is not so well defined but regardless, I think the two floods stories read better than the one mashed-up version in the Bible. The information here and the flood story translation are from Richard Elliott Friedman’s book, The Bible with Sources Revealed, pp42-47.
|
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Aug 13, 2017 10:36:58 GMT
It's the textural inconsistencies and anachronisms that gave rise to the documentary hypothesis: the Torah (Pentateuch) is a redacted sourced collection of various texts. An example of an anachronism: Then we have these from the Nevi’im (Prophets): Given that the Torah was supposedly written by Moses at a time before the incident mentioned in Joshua and Judges, it’s puzzling why Abram would be going to any town called Dan and not Lesham or Laish. It’s thought that the Genesis story was written by some later anonymous author referred to as the J source (Jahwe - Germanic rendering of YHWH). There are other anachronisms in the Torah such as the mention of camels given no evidence of them being beasts of burden so early, or the mention of the Philistines in Genesis given that they didn’t appear in Canaan until after the invasions of the Sea Peoples. As too are mentions of Edomite kings and Abraham being from Ur of the Chaldeans (or is it Harran?!) Even the use of linen breaches by priests in Exodus and Leviticus may imply not being wrote prior the Persian era. According to the documentary hypothesis, the textual inconsistencies in the story of the flood are due to two sources being interpolated by some redactor (a doublet). The Torah is littered with these doublets whose sources can be separated. Below from Genesis 6-8, I have extracted both J and P (Priestly) sources into separate stories with chapter and verse numbers removed. J source: P source: When the sources are separated, the inconsistencies become differences: the days of flood (40/150 days); birds sent out (dove/raven); pairing of animals (seven pairs/one pair). The documentary hypothesis has it's critics and some of the exegesis is not so well defined but regardless, I think the two floods stories read better than the one mashed-up version in the Bible. The information here and the flood story translation are from Richard Elliott Friedman’s book, The Bible with Sources Revealed, pp42-47. Wait a minute - are you saying the actual texts of the hypothesized J an P sources (and for that matter, E and D, too) are extant?
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 13, 2017 11:36:39 GMT
@filmfaneur Of course show scripture in context helps. That's the dumbest statement I've heard from you.
If the Bible cannot be used to discuss the Bible, then no wonder you are a confused kid on stuff. By showing the verses IN CONTEXT, a 10 year old can understand something you still can't.
But again, this goes back to the fact that inconsistency is not viewed universally.
It's an inconsistency ONLY because you state it is and your view of it means exactly the same as mine except my already stated explanations are better than your inconsistency.
Now since you love hurling ridiculous accusations my way (As if NIV isn't often quoted, I have such a work ethic that I will search through a ton of translations only to pretend disaster replaces evils... Seriously, I don't care which word is used...), I throw a valid one your way - You will never honestly appreciate a good answer since it doesn't aid you in unifying two very disparate verses.
I am fine with you not understanding the consistency of Scripture. I'm not having a Bible study with you. I am explaining why an inconsistency for you is not one for me and my reason is better. That's all.
If my answer didn't satisfy you, then the pages of explanation you think is needed wouldn't do anything either.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 13, 2017 11:38:22 GMT
I am familiar with that explanation, though I still don't understand why god wanted the Canaanites killed (not murdered). I know there is a bunch more inconsistencies; perhaps I'm hoping in vain that other atheists know some of them. My original reason for becoming atheist had nothing to do with the inconsistencies of the bible, so I am not well versed, as it were. I was just curious as to what others had noticed. Same here. It wasn't the internal inconsistencies so much as the disconnect between the Bible and the real world that did it for me. One particular whopper stands out for me: God stopping the sun and moon while Joshua held up his arms to give the Israelites more time to achieve victory over their enemies in battle. I'm sure there are many internal inconsistencies or contradictions. Like this: skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.htmlI was wondering when that puppy was going to be pulled. Is this where everybody gets them?
|
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Aug 13, 2017 11:49:04 GMT
@filmfaneur Of course show scripture in context helps. That's the dumbest statement I've heard from you. If the Bible cannot be used to discuss the Bible, then no wonder you are a confused kid on stuff. By showing the verses IN CONTEXT, a 10 year old can understand something you still can't. But again, this goes back to the fact that inconsistency is not viewed universally. It's an inconsistency ONLY because you state it is and your view of it means exactly the same as mine except my already stated explanations are better than your inconsistency. Now since you love hurling ridiculous accusations my way (As if NIV isn't often quoted, I have such a work ethic that I will search through a ton of translations only to pretend disaster replaces evils... Seriously, I don't care which word is used...), I throw a valid one your way - You will never honestly appreciate a good answer since it doesn't aid you in unifying two very disparate verses. I am fine with you not understanding the consistency of Scripture. I'm not having a Bible study with you. I am explaining why an inconsistency for you is not one for me and my reason is better. That's all. If my answer didn't satisfy you, then the pages of explanation you think is needed wouldn't do anything either. Inconsistencies are objective, not subjective. If one chapter says something which contradicts another chapter in the same book, then you have an inconsistency. You may well have an explanation for the inconsistency, but unless that explanation is explicitly stated in the same book, it remains an inconsistency.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 13, 2017 11:50:26 GMT
The whole works vs. faith controversy is one of the bigger disagreements between Protestant and Catholic theology. Both positions are supported by the Bible. This is a contradiction, but as usual, one gets around it via interpretations. And in this case, the disagreement isn't as big as either Protestants or Catholics make it out to be: Catholics believe both faith and works matter - but of course they aren't going to accept that doing the right thing for the wrong reasons - eg. to boast - is going to net you brownie points. After all, as with everything else, it's the thought that counts. Protestants, on the other hand, believe that faith is all-important. But, they also believe that a person of true faith will be inspired by the Holy Spirit to do good works, and I don't think Catholics would disagree.. In other words, one's faith is reflected in one's works. So having faith but not doing good works would be a contradiction in terms. As I said, there's not really a contradiction. I've never understood why the two groups differ on this when they both display what James explains Works are a component of faith as opposed to doing works results in same benefits as faith. I think James explains it wonderfully too so it's weird that people can't grasp it. Faith and works is not linear or separate, but circular or blended. So a righteous person could never do one without the other since they don;t have the ability/power to split the two from each other
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 13, 2017 11:52:53 GMT
"But what about my FIRST set of kids?!?!" --- Job. Inconsistency threads always turn into "Let me tell you why there are no inconsistencies because here's how we've decided to interpret them to make them less inconsistent" threads. Well, that's the same thing as saying no one wants an explanation for inconsistencies. If something is not an inconsistency or, to be fair, viewed as an inconsistency, then why the heck would someone not want a thread about inconsistency to turn into that. That is what's know as a good thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Aug 13, 2017 11:53:59 GMT
The whole works vs. faith controversy is one of the bigger disagreements between Protestant and Catholic theology. Both positions are supported by the Bible. This is a contradiction, but as usual, one gets around it via interpretations. And in this case, the disagreement isn't as big as either Protestants or Catholics make it out to be: Catholics believe both faith and works matter - but of course they aren't going to accept that doing the right thing for the wrong reasons - eg. to boast - is going to net you brownie points. After all, as with everything else, it's the thought that counts. Protestants, on the other hand, believe that faith is all-important. But, they also believe that a person of true faith will be inspired by the Holy Spirit to do good works, and I don't think Catholics would disagree.. In other words, one's faith is reflected in one's works. So having faith but not doing good works would be a contradiction in terms. As I said, there's not really a contradiction. I've never understood why the two groups differ on this when they both display what James explains Works are a component of faith as opposed to doing works results in same benefits as faith. I think James explains it wonderfully too so it's weird that people can't grasp it. Faith and works is not linear or separate, but circular or blended. So a righteous person could never do one without the other since they don;t have the ability/power to split the two from each other It's not about grasping what James says. It has to do with whether or not what James says is in accord with what other authors in the Bible say. You can grasp James 100%, but is he in complete agreement with other authors? Does he trump other authors?
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 13, 2017 11:59:40 GMT
@filmfaneur Of course show scripture in context helps. That's the dumbest statement I've heard from you. If the Bible cannot be used to discuss the Bible, then no wonder you are a confused kid on stuff. By showing the verses IN CONTEXT, a 10 year old can understand something you still can't. But again, this goes back to the fact that inconsistency is not viewed universally. It's an inconsistency ONLY because you state it is and your view of it means exactly the same as mine except my already stated explanations are better than your inconsistency. Now since you love hurling ridiculous accusations my way (As if NIV isn't often quoted, I have such a work ethic that I will search through a ton of translations only to pretend disaster replaces evils... Seriously, I don't care which word is used...), I throw a valid one your way - You will never honestly appreciate a good answer since it doesn't aid you in unifying two very disparate verses. I am fine with you not understanding the consistency of Scripture. I'm not having a Bible study with you. I am explaining why an inconsistency for you is not one for me and my reason is better. That's all. If my answer didn't satisfy you, then the pages of explanation you think is needed wouldn't do anything either. Inconsistencies are objective, not subjective. If one chapter says something which contradicts another chapter in the same book, then you have an inconsistency. You may well have an explanation for the inconsistency, but unless that explanation is explicitly stated in the same book, it remains an inconsistency. Disagree. If we assume that the Bible is a work of fiction (Or nonfiction really. It doesn't matter.), then we have to assume a person's view of it is indeed subjective unless they are close minded which is what i can presume is happening here given the examples on display. People do not want to understand the notion that God prophesying about Persia is a entirely different conversation than Christianity discussing Jews & Gentiles. This is eagles flying to mordor stuff and is not only purely subjective, it's also borderline irrational. It's sad too considering how many places the bible has that can't be explained...Which i am assuming is part of the definition skeptics use for inconsistency.
|
|
|
|
Post by fatpaul on Aug 13, 2017 12:14:59 GMT
Wait a minute - are you saying the actual texts of the hypothesized J an P sources (and for that matter, E and D, too) are extant? No,the individual sources,i.e. texts, are hypothetical as is the idea of a redactor(s). Maybe I should've said that the Torah is a redacted sourced collection of various hypothetical texts.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 13, 2017 12:18:03 GMT
As I said, there's not really a contradiction. I've never understood why the two groups differ on this when they both display what James explains Works are a component of faith as opposed to doing works results in same benefits as faith. I think James explains it wonderfully too so it's weird that people can't grasp it. Faith and works is not linear or separate, but circular or blended. So a righteous person could never do one without the other since they don;t have the ability/power to split the two from each other It's not about grasping what James says. It has to do with whether or not what James says is in accord with what other authors in the Bible say. You can grasp James 100%, but is he in complete agreement with other authors? Does he trump other authors? I'm saying that, given the context, there's no reason to think James is inconsistent with other authors. It's not about trumping since it's instruction. One can rasp what was said earlier without contradicting the actions mentioned in james. James just gives the best explanation of it that people literally ignore to argue about how lazy a Christian can be.
|
|