|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Aug 13, 2017 12:33:29 GMT
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. So why do Protestants and Catholics disagree? |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Aug 13, 2017 12:39:12 GMT
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. Evil Dead 2 ends with Ash being transported back to medieval times, where he kills a deadite and is hailed as a hero by the people around him. Evil Dead 3 begins with Ash being transported back in time and placed in chains as the same people believe him a witch. That's an inconsistency. The subjective views of the writers do not factor into it. The inconsistency is absolutely objective. |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Aug 14, 2017 14:44:03 GMT
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? I have no idea, I just did a Google search (for the link, searching for an inconsistency I was already familiar with and had noticed reading the Bible; the "whopper" has impressed me since childhood.) |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 14, 2017 23:26:38 GMT
I was wondering when that puppy was going to be pulled. Is this where everybody gets them? I have no idea, I just did a Google search (for the link, searching for an inconsistency I was already familiar with and had noticed reading the Bible; the "whopper" has impressed me since childhood.) I think the most significant point you're missing here is that the Bible is not supposed to be "easy" for just anyone to read. It is not supposed to be used by eleven year old children acting on their own to pass judgement on anyone. Now think. That being the case, isn't it just as well that the passage about the sun and moon "stopping" is difficult to explain? It puts those kids at a disadvantage. As for it being a "whopper," the creation of the Earth in 6 "days" is much more famous and just as difficult to explain. When you say, "Hey, here's one difficult to explain!," stop and think. Maybe it is not supposed to be easy. Maybe it is intentionally beyond the reach of children. It is a widespread assumption that if there were a "god" everything would be like in the Garden of Eden, God would just talk to you plainly, there would be no strife, just ease and plenty. Obviously parts of this Earth (if not the whole thing) are not the Garden of Eden. So maybe move on to some other argument. |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Aug 15, 2017 0:31:43 GMT
I have no idea, I just did a Google search (for the link, searching for an inconsistency I was already familiar with and had noticed reading the Bible; the "whopper" has impressed me since childhood.) I think the most significant point you're missing here is that the Bible is not supposed to be "easy" for just anyone to read. It is not supposed to be used by eleven year old children acting on their own to pass judgement on anyone. Now think. That being the case, isn't it just as well that the passage about the sun and moon "stopping" is difficult to explain? It puts those kids at a disadvantage. As for it being a "whopper," the creation of the Earth in 6 "days" is much more famous and just as difficult to explain. When you say, " Hey, here's one difficult to explain!," stop and think. Maybe it is not supposed to be easy. Maybe it is intentionally beyond the reach of children. It is a widespread assumption that if there were a "god" everything would be like in the Garden of Eden, God would just talk to you plainly, there would be no strife, just ease and plenty. Obviously parts of this Earth (if not the whole thing) are not the Garden of Eden. So maybe move on to some other argument. But there is a simple explanation: the author of the book was a bronze age priest that had a very poor grasp of the solar system, figuring that it's plausible for some small discs that go "up and down" about the sky above the solid firmanent to be momentarily paused. Had he any idea of heliocentricism and that the earth's rotation would have to be stopped for the described effects to occur, and had any idea of the physical impossibility of that happening, he would surely have invented a different plot device for his narrative. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 15, 2017 6:56:47 GMT
I think the most significant point you're missing here is that the Bible is not supposed to be "easy" for just anyone to read. It is not supposed to be used by eleven year old children acting on their own to pass judgement on anyone. Now think. That being the case, isn't it just as well that the passage about the sun and moon "stopping" is difficult to explain? It puts those kids at a disadvantage. As for it being a "whopper," the creation of the Earth in 6 "days" is much more famous and just as difficult to explain. When you say, " Hey, here's one difficult to explain!," stop and think. Maybe it is not supposed to be easy. Maybe it is intentionally beyond the reach of children. It is a widespread assumption that if there were a "god" everything would be like in the Garden of Eden, God would just talk to you plainly, there would be no strife, just ease and plenty. Obviously parts of this Earth (if not the whole thing) are not the Garden of Eden. So maybe move on to some other argument. But there is a simple explanation: the author of the book was a bronze age priest that had a very poor grasp of the solar system, figuring that it's plausible for some small discs that go "up and down" about the sky above the solid firmanent to be momentarily paused. Had he any idea of heliocentricism and that the earth's rotation would have to be stopped for the described effects to occur, and had any idea of the physical impossibility of that happening, he would surely have invented a different plot device for his narrative. I suppose most people of that time, priests or not, had a very limited understanding of astrophysics as compared to elementary school students today. They also had very little concern generally for such things and whether they were "true" or not. They did have months and seasons, which of course did matter very much to the way they ran their lives. Beyond that it did not matter whether the Earth was flat. Suppose some people of that time figured out that the Earth was not flat. Of what value is such information? Are you forgetting what I said about "Simon Says"? Not all the books in the Bible were written by "prophets." The author of Ecclesiastes was not a prophet. He was a king, but that was something else entirely. The book of Joshua appears written with Joshua in the third person, perhaps by some secretary of Joshua. Joshua himself was mostly just a secretary of Moses. Their attention to such details could be different from prophets. Nowhere in the Bible is anyone promised a book that can take the place of all religious leadership. It merely says that all of it is worth study. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Aug 15, 2017 8:11:03 GMT
I have no idea, I just did a Google search (for the link, searching for an inconsistency I was already familiar with and had noticed reading the Bible; the "whopper" has impressed me since childhood.) I think the most significant point you're missing here is that the Bible is not supposed to be "easy" for just anyone to read. It is not supposed to be used by eleven year old children acting on their own to pass judgement on anyone. Now think. That being the case, isn't it just as well that the passage about the sun and moon "stopping" is difficult to explain? It puts those kids at a disadvantage. First of all, 11 year old kids were not likely to have access to scripture at the time they were written. Second, to an 11-year old, the Bible will seem more simple and easy to read than to an adult, because kids do not question things so much. "The sun and the moon stood still? Sure, why not." Third, why is it a good thing that it is not easy to read? Wouldn't it be better - infinitely better - for the message to be clear and easily understood by anyone? Again, what would be the point? There is no reason why this should not be the case if that's the way an omnipotent god would want things to be. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 15, 2017 11:34:28 GMT
I think the most significant point you're missing here is that the Bible is not supposed to be "easy" for just anyone to read. It is not supposed to be used by eleven year old children acting on their own to pass judgement on anyone. Now think. That being the case, isn't it just as well that the passage about the sun and moon "stopping" is difficult to explain? It puts those kids at a disadvantage. First of all, 11 year old kids were not likely to have access to scripture at the time they were written. Second, to an 11-year old, the Bible will seem more simple and easy to read than to an adult, because kids do not question things so much. "The sun and the moon stood still? Sure, why not." Third, why is it a good thing that it is not easy to read? Wouldn't it be better - infinitely better - for the message to be clear and easily understood by anyone? Again, what would be the point? There is no reason why this should not be the case if that's the way an omnipotent god would want things to be. People who do not question or analyze things can find themselves at odds with others who don't question or analyze things. For example some Republicans accept whatever a Republican says or does without question, but not what Democrats say or do. Similarly some Democrats accept whatever a Democrat says or does without question, but not what Republicans say or do. It's a hopeless situation until the adults can get in the picture. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Aug 15, 2017 12:01:44 GMT
First of all, 11 year old kids were not likely to have access to scripture at the time they were written. Second, to an 11-year old, the Bible will seem more simple and easy to read than to an adult, because kids do not question things so much. "The sun and the moon stood still? Sure, why not." Third, why is it a good thing that it is not easy to read? Wouldn't it be better - infinitely better - for the message to be clear and easily understood by anyone? Again, what would be the point? There is no reason why this should not be the case if that's the way an omnipotent god would want things to be. For example some Republicans accept whatever a Republican says or does without question, but not what Democrats say or do. Similarly some Democrats accept whatever a Democrat says or does without question, but not what Republicans say or do. It's a hopeless situation until the adults can get in the picture. Exactly, which is why we have a zillion different denominations of Christianity, because Christians can't agree on what the book says. Not 11-year olds, but old men with long beards who have devoted their lives to studying the Bible. Wouldn't it be possible for an omnipotent and omniscient being to inspire someone to write something which would be understood clearly, even by an 11-year old? |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 15, 2017 12:14:25 GMT
People who do not question or analyze things can find themselves at odds with others who don't question or analyze things. For example some Republicans accept whatever a Republican says or does without question, but not what Democrats say or do. Similarly some Democrats accept whatever a Democrat says or does without question, but not what Republicans say or do. It's a hopeless situation until the adults can get in the picture. Exactly, which is why we have a zillion different denominations of Christianity, because Christians can't agree on what the book says. Not 11-year olds, but old men with long beards who have devoted their lives to studying the Bible. Wouldn't it be possible for an omnipotent and omniscient being to inspire someone to write something which would be understood clearly, even by an 11-year old? That is exactly why it is a mistake to consider Christianity a "religion." It is not. It is just the waiting room for the religion of Judaism. Of course atheism is going to make more sense than Christianity. Most "Christians" are more atheistic than people who call themselves atheists. Instead of wondering how things ought to play out, maybe pay more attention to how they do play out. There are no simple answers and this is not the Garden of Eden. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Aug 15, 2017 12:22:25 GMT
Exactly, which is why we have a zillion different denominations of Christianity, because Christians can't agree on what the book says. Not 11-year olds, but old men with long beards who have devoted their lives to studying the Bible. Wouldn't it be possible for an omnipotent and omniscient being to inspire someone to write something which would be understood clearly, even by an 11-year old? That is exactly why it is a mistake to consider Christianity a "religion." It is not. It is just the waiting room for the religion of Judaism. Of course atheism is going to make more sense than Christianity. Most "Christians" are more atheistic than people who call themselves atheists. Instead of wondering how things ought to play out, maybe pay more attention to how they do play out. There are no simple answers and this is not the Garden of Eden. You didn't actually address what I said. Wouldn't it be possible for an omnipotent and omniscient being to inspire someone to write something which would be understood clearly, even by an 11-year old? That way, no bickering over interpretation, no schisms, no religious feuds, everybody in agreement. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 15, 2017 12:25:33 GMT
That is exactly why it is a mistake to consider Christianity a "religion." It is not. It is just the waiting room for the religion of Judaism. Of course atheism is going to make more sense than Christianity. Most "Christians" are more atheistic than people who call themselves atheists. Instead of wondering how things ought to play out, maybe pay more attention to how they do play out. There are no simple answers and this is not the Garden of Eden. Wouldn't it be possible for an omnipotent and omniscient being to inspire someone to write something which would be understood clearly, even by an 11-year old? That way, no bickering over interpretation, no schisms, no religious feuds, everybody in agreement. If anything the whole "Garden of Eden - free will" thing has been overdone. I can't see why you still have trouble understanding it. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Aug 15, 2017 12:26:39 GMT
You didn't actually address what I said. Wouldn't it be possible for an omnipotent and omniscient being to inspire someone to write something which would be understood clearly, even by an 11-year old? That way, no bickering over interpretation, no schisms, no religious feuds, everybody in agreement. If anything the whole "Garden of Eden - free will" thing has been overdone. I can't see why you still have trouble understanding it. Still doesn't remotely address what I said. Wouldn't it be possible for an omnipotent and omniscient being to inspire someone to write something which would be understood clearly, even by an 11-year old? That way, no bickering over interpretation, no schisms, no religious feuds, everybody in agreement. Nothing whatsoever to do with the Fall or "free will". |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Aug 15, 2017 15:01:37 GMT
But there is a simple explanation: the author of the book was a bronze age priest that had a very poor grasp of the solar system, figuring that it's plausible for some small discs that go "up and down" about the sky above the solid firmanent to be momentarily paused. Had he any idea of heliocentricism and that the earth's rotation would have to be stopped for the described effects to occur, and had any idea of the physical impossibility of that happening, he would surely have invented a different plot device for his narrative. I suppose most people of that time, priests or not, had a very limited understanding of astrophysics as compared to elementary school students today. They also had very little concern generally for such things and whether they were "true" or not. They did have months and seasons, which of course did matter very much to the way they ran their lives. Beyond that it did not matter whether the Earth was flat. Suppose some people of that time figured out that the Earth was not flat. Of what value is such information? To the average ancient person that information wasn't important. Today is is. But that is all beside the point. The ancient author would have written the story of Joshua differently had he known what we know about physics and the earth. |
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Aug 15, 2017 23:43:41 GMT
As Karl Aksel posted in another thread: Is there a book already in existence that does this? This site lists hundreds of what they claim are inconsistencies |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Aug 16, 2017 2:12:54 GMT
As Karl Aksel posted in another thread: Is there a book already in existence that does this? This site lists hundreds of what they claim are inconsistencies Thanks for the link; holy cow, it's gonna take forever to read! |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 16, 2017 9:28:20 GMT
I suppose most people of that time, priests or not, had a very limited understanding of astrophysics as compared to elementary school students today. They also had very little concern generally for such things and whether they were "true" or not. They did have months and seasons, which of course did matter very much to the way they ran their lives. Beyond that it did not matter whether the Earth was flat. Suppose some people of that time figured out that the Earth was not flat. Of what value is such information? To the average ancient person that information wasn't important. Today is is. But that is all beside the point. The ancient author would have written the story of Joshua differently had he known what we know about physics and the earth. Why? You're still trying hopelessly to reduce communication to some one-size-fits-all scheme. How writers address audiences depends quite much on the audience. Why shouldn't it? Furthermore, while I really do doubt the sun and moon "stood still" in other than some poetic sense there is the possibility that they did. After all the universe has to have forces unknown to us if it is to maintain itself against the heat death of entropy |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 16, 2017 9:29:55 GMT
If anything the whole "Garden of Eden - free will" thing has been overdone. I can't see why you still have trouble understanding it. Still doesn't remotely address what I said. Wouldn't it be possible for an omnipotent and omniscient being to inspire someone to write something which would be understood clearly, even by an 11-year old? That way, no bickering over interpretation, no schisms, no religious feuds, everybody in agreement. Nothing whatsoever to do with the Fall or "free will". I understood it when I was 11. The problem seems to be on your end. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Aug 16, 2017 9:42:14 GMT
Still doesn't remotely address what I said. Wouldn't it be possible for an omnipotent and omniscient being to inspire someone to write something which would be understood clearly, even by an 11-year old? That way, no bickering over interpretation, no schisms, no religious feuds, everybody in agreement. Nothing whatsoever to do with the Fall or "free will". I understood it when I was 11. The problem seems to be on your end. You're contradicting yourself. You said it's not for 11-year olds to understand - 11-year olds THINK they understand it, and this you acknowledged. But now you say you DID understand it? How would you even know? Because as I pointed out, there is no consensus among scholars as to what the Bible says. So if you are claiming to have actually understood the Bible, as it was meant to be understood, you are making a no less bold claim that you are God. But let us assume that you're some sort of genius who magically understands what nobody else can agree on - that still leaves the rest of the world. The fact that you can't seem to understand the problem here makes me very certain indeed that you did not understand the Bible at 11, nor at any point since. You may think you do, but if you happen to be right about anything in it, it is only due to a lucky guess - and you are yourself not in a position to know what you're right about. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 16, 2017 11:38:03 GMT
I understood it when I was 11. The problem seems to be on your end. You're contradicting yourself. You said it's not for 11-year olds to understand - 11-year olds THINK they understand it, and this you acknowledged. But now you say you DID understand it? How would you even know? Because as I pointed out, there is no consensus among scholars as to what the Bible says. So if you are claiming to have actually understood the Bible, as it was meant to be understood, you are making a no less bold claim that you are God. But let us assume that you're some sort of genius who magically understands what nobody else can agree on - that still leaves the rest of the world. The fact that you can't seem to understand the problem here makes me very certain indeed that you did not understand the Bible at 11, nor at any point since. You may think you do, but if you happen to be right about anything in it, it is only due to a lucky guess - and you are yourself not in a position to know what you're right about. I understand some specific points. I understand that this is not the Garden of Eden. I understand that as creatures with free will some might make evil choices. I understand that the rain falls on the just and the unjust. I understand that God does not dictate much, at least not here on Earth. I'm not certain what sort of a dictator he might be in heaven. What kind would you like? Quite many people, especially young people, especially because they are young, do not understand these things. Too many adults continue to believe childish things. Some people learn faster than others. I was especially fast. There are quite many things I cannot say. I do not know whether the sun and moon actually stopped or it simply means a change in the way time was perceived. I do well understand that stopping and restarting the movement of celestial bodies would require forces totally unknown to human science. Several things would require forces totally unknown to human science. You keep trying to force simplistic answers that are not consistent with this being a place of free will and not the Garden of Eden because you keep holding on to your childish simplicity. I do not contradict myself. |
|
