Bible inconsistencies - a question please?

YouBelieveWHAT?

Muse
Y
Joined
Nov 4, 2004
Messages
975
Recently I've been visiting a number of Christian sites to try to understand the inconsistencies in the Bible.

One common refrain is that many of the are obviosly not inconsistent, but they are "literary devices" used at the time.

My question is this - is this a theory that has been developed by using the Bible (and therefore self-referencing), or can it be proved from other texts?

Thank you,

Oh - and even though I'm an Atheist, I still like to wish people...

Nadolig Llawen y blwyddyn newydd Dda!

YBW
 
That some stories are allegories to teach a lesson of some type is well understood. It's just that, as science (and history) tell us more and more of the way things actually were and are, that more and more of the Bible must be pushed into the "stories" region instead of the literal one, or else it must be rejected as false, or at least, not the inerrant Word of God (itself a historically dubious concept.)
 
YouBelieveWHAT? said:
Recently I've been visiting a number of Christian sites to try to understand the inconsistencies in the Bible.

One common refrain is that many of the are obviosly not inconsistent, but they are "literary devices" used at the time.

My question is this - is this a theory that has been developed by using the Bible (and therefore self-referencing), or can it be proved from other texts?
Click to expand...

I am unaware of any text in the bible that explicitly says "Understand this part this way (as allegory) and this part literally. However, it is quite clear that some parts of the text are not to be understood in a literal fashion such as the propehcies in Revelation. Things like beasts with multiple heads and the like are fairy simple to recognize as non literal. The psalms and proverbs are equally easy to understand that they are not to be taken in a literal manner, but to be understood as what they are, a literary form to be understood according to the rules governing the literary form.

The post creation account with the serpent and the fruit of knowledge are much less clear as to how to understand. Is this talking of a literal snake and a literal fruit that was eaten?

However, what Beerina has said is also true. As we learn more about our world, it's function, history etc. parts of the bible that were historically viewed literally get moved into a non literal category in order to survive scrutiny. There certainly was a time pre-Darwin that the popular belief was that the creation account was quite literal and 7 days (24 hour periods) was the full extent of time it took. Very few would accept this understanding today.
 
Thanks,

I understand, and "believe" what you've both written.

If I could be more specific, the "classic literary device" is the use of "we" when it apparently means just the one God.

In Genesis it's used, but God is also apparently talking to somebody (or Himself? But that opens all sorts of other lines of discussion!) so that implies more than one God?

In the Ten Commandments, too, it states "Thou shalt have no other God but me" - again suggesting that there's more than one.

I wonder too, after reading that Cain went to the "Land of Nod" to find a wife - surely that also suggests that another God was playing with His own Theme Park?

So - is the "WE" in Genesis more likely to be just bad editing of another, older text that did refer to many Gods, or some literary device?

Thanks,

YBW
 
Certainly the prevailing secular interpretation is that primaeval multiple deities evolved into the single one of the Bible, and the different names (El, Elohim, Yah, YHWH, Adonai, Shaddai, etc.) fit into that.

Religious scholars argue that the names refer to aspects of the divine relationship with the world, and the use of each one is consistent. That doesn't undo the secular argument, in that the "personalities" of those deities could also have been absorbed by the YHWH one.

There's also the fact that two of the names mentioned above - Elohim and El - can also be used to refer to non-divine powers. "El" means "power" or "mighty one" [wracks brain...] see Psalm 29:1, for example; and "Elohim" can mean (THE) God, god(s) or even a judge or powerful person. The meaning is usually clear from context.

As for the literal vs. figurative Genesis stuff, prominent religious acceptance of the creation and Eden narratives as figurative are not exactly new. Nachmanides, a mainstream Jewish scholar of 13th century Spain, said those portions of Genesis are symbolic, and there are shades of that thinking in the Talmud (compiled c. 500 from earlier sources).

As an aside, the literalist thinkers (if one can use such a term) didn't wait until Darwin to get their knickers in a twist. Darwin provided the mechanism for evolution, not the essence. He followed Lyell and others who argued from geology, not just biology; evolution was a recognized (if still controversial) concept a decade or two before Darwin.

I discovered only a few weeks ago that the name Eden, usually translated as "delight," uses the Hebrew root that also means "time" or "age". That fits well with the idea that the beginning of Genesis speaks about humanity for all time, not as history.
 
Thanks - I've always thought that anybody who reads Genesis literally need his/her head examined!

Recently, I've started an e-mail dialogue with a guy who works for the same company as me. Sadly, we can't discuss this over a few beers, as he's in the US, and I'm in Central Europe!

I mentioned to him that it seemed to me that the Bible couldn't easily be read without a lot of explanation - even though when I was a Christian I recall hearing that it's written for all people and all time - and he tried to refute this.

However, he used Daniel - where the "death" of JC is forecast, I can't remember the actual verses - but had to explain that the weeks really referred to years - thus providing a small confirmation of what I'd stated!

I've actually spent time at www.ebonmusings.org where there are some very good articles - including one on Bible consistencies. I'm trying to use this as a basis for my own research - and the future e-mail discussions, as I'm sure there's no point in trying to argue "the Bible" with this guy without a bit more knowledge.

However, I mean to enjoy the exchanges!

I'm currently writing my latest essay suggesting that if God exists, He's not a very good one - maybe I'll post it here before sending it for comments!

Thanks!

YBW
 
YouBelieveWHAT? said:
Thanks - I've always thought that anybody who reads Genesis literally need his/her head examined!

Recently, I've started an e-mail dialogue with a guy who works for the same company as me. Sadly, we can't discuss this over a few beers, as he's in the US, and I'm in Central Europe!

I mentioned to him that it seemed to me that the Bible couldn't easily be read without a lot of explanation - even though when I was a Christian I recall hearing that it's written for all people and all time - and he tried to refute this.

However, he used Daniel - where the "death" of JC is forecast, I can't remember the actual verses - but had to explain that the weeks really referred to years - thus providing a small confirmation of what I'd stated!

I've actually spent time at www.ebonmusings.org where there are some very good articles - including one on Bible consistencies. I'm trying to use this as a basis for my own research - and the future e-mail discussions, as I'm sure there's no point in trying to argue "the Bible" with this guy without a bit more knowledge.

However, I mean to enjoy the exchanges!

I'm currently writing my latest essay suggesting that if God exists, He's not a very good one - maybe I'll post it here before sending it for comments!

Thanks!

YBW
Click to expand...


I'd be interested to read your essay.

I can't remember right now, but there is a website that lists a catalogue of inconsistancies in the bible. I'll google and let you know what I find.
 
The real inconsistencies are the philosophical ones. That is, as long as it's on the level "You can't actually walk on water" or "The word referring to God at this point is in plural" or "Snakes don't talk", most believers today will not take them seriously. If someone is telling a fable about a rabbit and a turtle, with an important moral in it that they you want to understand, and you respond "Rabbits and turtles don't talk to each other", it only seems like you haven't understood anything of what they meant. Though your statement is, of course, correct, you've completely missed the real point - the moral.

(Now, of course there are people who suggests it's all literal and true, but those people tend to cover their ears when faced with this kind of contradictions.)

No, the interesting incosistencis, in my opinion, are when the Bible obviously gives advices that contradict each other. That's also the reason why it's usually pointless to use a Bible quote to prove a point - there's a major risk that there's another Bible quote that opposes the first one. If you're going to look for inconsistencies, I suggest you look for these.

And a merry Christmas to you! :singing1: :singing1:
 
skepticsannotatedbible is a good starting point, but as others have pointed out on other threads here, it over reaches at times. Don't just email their list of inconsistencies with an "Ahah! Toldja!"

You'll need to cull it first; you'll find several, I think, with which you disagree as being inconsistent.
 
YouBelieveWHAT? said:
Recently I've been visiting a number of Christian sites to try to understand the inconsistencies in the Bible.

One common refrain is that many of the are obviosly not inconsistent, but they are "literary devices" used at the time.

My question is this - is this a theory that has been developed by using the Bible (and therefore self-referencing), or can it be proved from other texts?

Thank you,

Oh - and even though I'm an Atheist, I still like to wish people...

Nadolig Llawen y blwyddyn newydd Dda!

YBW
Click to expand...

Hi YouBelieveWHAT?, several months ago I was answering some questions on this very subject for Dr. Adequate and Ryokan and others. I answered a few of their cited inconsistencies. Some things changed in my life, mainly my position in my company, and I did not have the time to continue with the discussion then. Or more truthfully to say, I prioritized my time and discussions here at JREF were not at the top. Any how, you might search for those threads and see if you think any of my arguments are worth while.

The main premise I have on this subject is that most passages that, on the surface, seem to have contradictions, either seem that way to us because of our individual lack of knowledge on ancient Hebrew literature and culture (especially in the Old Testament), and not understanding that we are not always given a total narration of the events that happened. (more in the New Testament) The author gave what was important in what he was trying to say to his audience. So taking different narrations of the same event, but written by different authors for deferent audiences, and putting them together, you can reconstruct a more complete picture of the event that happened.

-dude
 
Christian Dude said:
Hi YouBelieveWHAT?, several months ago I was answering some questions on this very subject for Dr. Adequate and Ryokan and others. I answered a few of their cited inconsistencies. Some things changed in my life, mainly my position in my company, and I did not have the time to continue with the discussion then. Or more truthfully to say, I prioritized my time and discussions here at JREF were not at the top. Any how, you might search for those threads and see if you think any of my arguments are worth while.

The main premise I have on this subject is that most passages that, on the surface, seem to have contradictions, either seem that way to us because of our individual lack of knowledge on ancient Hebrew literature and culture (especially in the Old Testament), and not understanding that we are not always given a total narration of the events that happened. (more in the New Testament) The author gave what was important in what he was trying to say to his audience. So taking different narrations of the same event, but written by different authors for deferent audiences, and putting them together, you can reconstruct a more complete picture of the event that happened.

-dude
Click to expand...


And for the second time this year, on the heels of kurious_kathy, we see CD appear again.

Hello again CD.

I believe you are saying very verbosely that you can fit an ad hoc hypothesis into anything in the bible to make it work, and unfortunately that's not how this logic thing works.

Also, argmuent from ignorance is not a credible premise either. Many people with degrees in relevant fields have noted inconsistancies in the bible, and those that have a very good background in ancient hebrew (the text has not changed much at all in 2000 years, and you only need visit a synagogue and ask to see their torah to find that out for yourself) that there were more than 1 authors for genesis and more than 1 creation story.

In otherwords, your premise doesn't hold any water. Perhaps if you changed it to wine it would make sense.



P.s. I am still waiting for you to provide me with any evidence that Intelligent Design "scientists" have actually had peer reviewed scientific study published. That can be done in the Gospel thread. You can use the search function to find it.

Your re-prioritizing of your time and not posting with the JREF so much has a funny coincidence with being asked alot of pointed direct questions you couldn't answer. please answer them now.
 
Last edited:
To all of you here at JREF that have had discussions with me, or have read some of my posts,

It is very hard to keep up with the virtually multiple tens and even hundreds of responses that can come back specifically directed at me when I make a post. Although not this particular thread, but this subject had many, many posts directed at me, and I could not keep up because I did not have the time, because the fore mentioned changes, and my priorities. Also, I did not know what I was getting myself into with the piranhas attacking me. (said in jest) It is just an issue of time for me, and I like to do other things before I spend time here at JREF. I will always play my guitar before I spend time here for example, sorry.

I will post here at JREF occasionally when I have spare time. I enjoy the discussions with people here and the spirited debates.
 
Christian Dude said:
To all of you here at JREF that have had discussions with me, or have read some of my posts,

It is very hard to keep up with the virtually multiple tens and even hundreds of responses that can come back specifically directed at me when I make a post. Although not this particular thread, but this subject had many, many posts directed at me, and I could not keep up because I did not have the time, because the fore mentioned changes, and my priorities. Also, I did not know what I was getting myself into with the piranhas attacking me. (said in jest) It is just an issue of time for me, and I like to do other things before I spend time here at JREF. I will always play my guitar before I spend time here for example, sorry.

I will post here at JREF occasionally when I have spare time. I enjoy the discussions with people here and the spirited debates.
Click to expand...



Sorry. DIdn't mean to drive ya away.

I look forward to your return and discussions.



P.s. if you ever want to record that guitar, Fowlsound productions has fair prices ;)

What kind? I am looking for a nice Martin to add to my collection.
 
Christian Dude said:
To all of you here at JREF that have had discussions with me, or have read some of my posts,

It is very hard to keep up with the virtually multiple tens and even hundreds of responses that can come back specifically directed at me when I make a post. Although not this particular thread, but this subject had many, many posts directed at me, and I could not keep up because I did not have the time, because the fore mentioned changes, and my priorities. Also, I did not know what I was getting myself into with the piranhas attacking me. (said in jest) It is just an issue of time for me, and I like to do other things before I spend time here at JREF. I will always play my guitar before I spend time here for example, sorry.

I will post here at JREF occasionally when I have spare time. I enjoy the discussions with people here and the spirited debates.
Click to expand...

No problem, axezilla Dude. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom