Experiment.

[MoreCoffee]

This thread is intended as an experiment to see if we can create a discussion in CH that is less composed to quotes from authority sources and more composed of what each contributor thinks themselves even if their thought has been formed by an authority such as a bible (66 book or 73 book or other) People are encouraged to use their own words, avoid lengthy quotes, eschew one liners, be polite, be patient, be scrupulous about reading the post that they are responding to and just make an effort not to treat the other people in the discussion badly.

What topic shall we start with?

I suggest something about which we likely have views but not necessarily the same views.

So, let's start with this.

How do you deal with bible contradictions and bible atrocities; do you try to reconcile them by carefully constructed explanations of what they mean and do not mean and how that removes the apparent contradiction or the apparent atrocity or do you accept that it is a contradiction and then find a way to preserve your view of the holiness and goodness of God despite the biblical contradictions and atrocities or do you do something else?

I am choosing this topic because it is interesting, relevant, and likely to generate some heat but hopefully without smoke and without degeneration into mutual anathemas and insult throwing. I think it may be a good experiment because it will tell us as well as others how we will handle controversial matters in other threads and if we can keep civility alive in a heated discussion or if we can't.

If no one want to participate in the experiment then that tells us something too. I am not sure exactly what it tells me, but I will work it out as things move along or don't.

 

[psalms 91]

Very simply I dont believe that there are contradictions in the bible, only a lack of understanding and nor a lack of desire to sift the whole word of God to find out how to resolve the conflict that seems to exist.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Very simply I dont believe that there are contradictions in the bible, only a lack of understanding and nor a lack of desire to sift the whole word of God to find out how to resolve the conflict that seems to exist.

I'd like to believe what you've said but how do you deal with the passage that says no man has ever seen God and the many passages that tell of people seeing God and especially the passage where Moses is said to have seen God's hind parts. There are other passages where Jehovah appeared to a prophet or a priest yet the new testament affirms that no man has ever seen God.

 

[Tigger]

I think this thread theme is a great idea as long as we follow it's parameters.

As far as the subject of the OP, Lutherans embrace paradoxes which I highly appreciate and don't try and force scriptures into categories when they don't actually harmonize for the sake of our own limited understandings.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I think this thread theme is a great idea as long as we follow it's parameters.

As far as the subject of the OP, Lutherans embrace paradoxes which I highly appreciate and don't try and force scriptures into categories when they don't actually harmonize for the sake of our own limited understandings.

Catholics point to mystery as well as to historical context and human limitations impacting what the holy scriptures could say at the time that they were written but that still leaves some contradictions that are hard to reconcile. And what do we do with the passages where God commands absolutely hideously bad things to be done?

Mystery can take you so far and paradox may take you to the same place as mystery but what do we do with the really nasty things like the genocide of Amalek and the joy one is to experience as the babies one one's enemies are dashed against the rocks? I can't see a good way to make those passages true and still have a good God who is loving and moral.

 

[Tigger]

Catholics point to mystery as well as to historical context and human limitations impacting what the holy scriptures could say at the time that they were written but that still leaves some contradictions that are hard to reconcile. And what do we do with the passages where God commands absolutely hideously bad things to be done?

Mystery can take you so far and paradox may take you to the same place as mystery but what do we do with the really nasty things like the genocide of Amalek and the joy one is to experience as the babies one one's enemies are dashed against the rocks? I can't see a good way to make those passages true and still have a good God who is loving and moral.

Ultimately I trust God and His righteousness. Why He didn't do it Himself like Noah's flood or the parting of the Red sea and the Egyptians I don't know but let that be a warming concerning hell.

 

[psalms 91]

I'd like to believe what you've said but how do you deal with the passage that says no man has ever seen God and the many passages that tell of people seeing God and especially the passage where Moses is said to have seen God's hind parts. There are other passages where Jehovah appeared to a prophet or a priest yet the new testament affirms that no man has ever seen God.

Simple Moses did not see His face and as for the others they saw a simlitude of God and not God, that one is very easy.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Simple Moses did not see His face and as for the others they saw a simlitude of God and not God, that one is very easy.

Easy if you explain it away, yes, but maybe not so easy if the passages are read carefully and the words taken at face value. I know that many Christians are satisfied with explanations such as the one you've given. For the most part I am happy with it in some cases. Nevertheless a serious atheist will not back down just because Christians say "it is all a matter of perspective, Moses didn't see God's face so he didn't see God he just saw his posterior portions." and saying that the other passages are about a vision or a metaphor or something will land us in deeper trouble than doing a serious job of explaining each passage properly and credibly. The temptation is always with Christians to gloss over the difficulties. But a serious atheist will not be convinced by glossing over the data he sees in his printed bible. Let's take an example of one passage of this kind, there are many more than one, but for brevity just one will suffice for now.

(Exodus 24:10) And they saw the God of Israel. And under his feet was something like a work of sapphire stone, or like the sky, when it is serene.​

They saw the God of Israel, 70 + 3 of them. Was it a vision? The passage doesn't say it was. Did they "see God" the passage says that they did. It will be difficult to gloss it over and harder to make it say that they saw a vision of God. But I am confident that many will say it was a vision and give reasons for why it had to be - very scientific sounding reasons like an Atheist might.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Ultimately I trust God and His righteousness. Why He didn't do it Himself like Noah's flood or the parting of the Red sea and the Egyptians I don't know but let that be a warming concerning hell.

I too trust God and love him - always remembering that he first loved me and did good to and for me - nevertheless genocide? infanticide? what of the mothers and fathers of the first born of Egypt, babies as well as older first born children all allegedly killed at God's hand by a plague (or the angel of death). How is that good and loving as well as moral? I can see a way of dealing with the ten plagues by treating them as lessons in a story that may not have happened quite the way it is told or may not have happened in any way. That is a possible solution but it leaves the issue of reliability hanging because if one story in the bible is a metaphor presented to teach a moral lesson then why not many or even all of the stories and then the story of the Lord Jesus Christ becomes a possible victim of the metaphor hermeneutic.

 

[psalms 91]

Easy if you explain it away, yes, but maybe not so easy if the passages are read carefully and the words taken at face value. I know that many Christians are satisfied with explanations such as the one you've given. For the most part I am happy with it in some cases. Nevertheless a serious atheist will not back down just because Christians say "it is all a matter of perspective, Moses didn't see God's face so he didn't see God he just saw his posterior portions." and saying that the other passages are about a vision or a metaphor or something will land us in deeper trouble than doing a serious job of explaining each passage properly and credibly. The temptation is always with Christians to gloss over the difficulties. But a serious atheist will not be convinced by glossing over the data he sees in his printed bible. Let's take an example of one passage of this kind, there are many more than one, but for brevity just one will suffice for now.

(Exodus 24:10) And they saw the God of Israel. And under his feet was something like a work of sapphire stone, or like the sky, when it is serene.​

They saw the God of Israel, 70 + 3 of them. Was it a vision? The passage doesn't say it was. Did they "see God" the passage says that they did. It will be difficult to gloss it over and harder to make it say that they saw a vision of God. But I am confident that many will say it was a vision and give reasons for why it had to be - very scientific sounding reasons like an Atheist might.

To be honest I dont care what a dedicated athiest has to say about the bible. If they are hard core there is nothing I can say or show them that will change their minds, only the spirit of God will be able to do that. So accept it by faith and look at it as it is and accept that the bible has no errors or dont.

 

[psalms 91]

I too trust God and love him - always remembering that he first loved me and did good to and for me - nevertheless genocide? infanticide? what of the mothers and fathers of the first born of Egypt, babies as well as older first born children all allegedly killed at God's hand by a plague (or the angel of death). How is that good and loving as well as moral? I can see a way of dealing with the ten plagues by treating them as lessons in a story that may not have happened quite the way it is told or may not have happened in any way. That is a possible solution but it leaves the issue of reliability hanging because if one story in the bible is a metaphor presented to teach a moral lesson then why not many or even all of the stories and then the story of the Lord Jesus Christ becomes a possible victim of the metaphor hermeneutic.

You can twist yourself in a know or simply accept the Word of God. Who are we to judge God? Or call into question what happened. Do we know that these people did not deserve death? Do we not see the consequences of leaving some alive even today as Israel faces its enemies that had they listened to God back then would not have that now? It is easy to armchair an event that we dont know everything about but maybe harder once you do.

 

[MoreCoffee]

You can twist yourself in a knot or simply accept the Word of God. Who are we to judge God? Or call into question what happened. Do we know that these people did not deserve death? Do we not see the consequences of leaving some alive even today as Israel faces its enemies that had they listened to God back then would not have that now? It is easy to armchair an event that we dont know everything about but maybe harder once you do.

I want to do both, I want to understand and explain what the bible stories mean and at the same time love God and trust him and what is written in the holy scriptures. But what I want and what is possible may not be the same thing. Believing in God is not hard but believing in God and accepting that genocide is okay and that the tenth plague was okay or that the people killed in some way deserved it is not easy. Genocide is bad isn't it? Or is it really okay to do it? Not genocide of some segment of the population infected with some terrible malady that will destroy the whole of humanity if not expunged entirely from the earth. That would be a terrible dilemma and maybe it could be justified after the fact but it would be terrible and immoral even if necessary. But the genocides in the bible are of people, just people whose ancestors did bad things (as is the case with Amalek) or who are a part of an oppressive nation (as is the case of the tenth plague in the Exodus story) like Egypt. There is a moral issue here that Christians ought not deflect or deny but many Christians just ignore it or notice it and then look elsewhere because what they see in genocides contained in holy scripture makes for a worrying picture of God and his justice and mercy.

 

[MennoSota]

This thread is intended as an experiment to see if we can create a discussion in CH that is less composed to quotes from authority sources and more composed of what each contributor thinks themselves even if their thought has been formed by an authority such as a bible (66 book or 73 book or other) People are encouraged to use their own words, avoid lengthy quotes, eschew one liners, be polite, be patient, be scrupulous about reading the post that they are responding to and just make an effort not to treat the other people in the discussion badly.

What topic shall we start with?

I suggest something about which we likely have views but not necessarily the same views.

So, let's start with this.

How do you deal with bible contradictions and bible atrocities; do you try to reconcile them by carefully constructed explanations of what they mean and do not mean and how that removes the apparent contradiction or the apparent atrocity or do you accept that it is a contradiction and then find a way to preserve your view of the holiness and goodness of God despite the biblical contradictions and atrocities or do you do something else?

I am choosing this topic because it is interesting, relevant, and likely to generate some heat but hopefully without smoke and without degeneration into mutual anathemas and insult throwing. I think it may be a good experiment because it will tell us as well as others how we will handle controversial matters in other threads and if we can keep civility alive in a heated discussion or if we can't.

If no one want to participate in the experiment then that tells us something too. I am not sure exactly what it tells me, but I will work it out as things move along or don't.

I assume that God fully inspired the Bible and speaks truthfully.
I view humans as wholly corrupted in broken covenant with God. (Rebels)
I recognize that God has no obligation to interact with rebels or show rebels any kindness. He does so out of His own will to do so.
God is not obligated to stop rebels from killing each other and doing horrific things.
God has all authority to use the horrific actions of humans to accomplish His will. God does not need to answer rebels or justify His actions to them. God chooses to do as He wills because He is the authority with full Sovereign power over all He has created...including that creation which is in open rebellion to Him.
Therefore, any contradictions or atrocities are merely accusations from ignorant humans in rebellion against God. Human ways are not God's way and human judgment of God is laughable. God can choose to ignore any complaints as coming from corrupt, rebellious, vile creatures who cannot conceive what God is up to.
Let God be true and every man a liar.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I assume that God fully inspired the Bible and speaks truthfully.
I view humans as wholly corrupted in broken covenant with God. (Rebels)
I recognize that God has no obligation to interact with rebels or show rebels any kindness. He does so out of His own will to do so.
God is not obligated to stop rebels from killing each other and doing horrific things.
God has all authority to use the horrific actions of humans to accomplish His will. God does not need to answer rebels or justify His actions to them. God chooses to do as He wills because He is the authority with full Sovereign power over all He has created...including that creation which is in open rebellion to Him.
Therefore, any contradictions or atrocities are merely accusations from ignorant humans in rebellion against God. Human ways are not God's way and human judgment of God is laughable. God can choose to ignore any complaints as coming from corrupt, rebellious, vile creatures who cannot conceive what God is up to.
Let God be true and every man a liar.

I see that you've alluded to scripture towards the end of your statement and that you've taken the view that whatever God does is by definition good and that human beings are God's creations so he may dispose of them any way he likes and no justifiable complaint can be made against his actions no matter how apparently horrific and apparently immoral they are. If that is your perspective then no argument no matter how cogent can be brought against your position that you will not dismiss. That being so I think your contribution is complete despite it making a case against God as moral and there being any kind of objective morality except that might makes right and almighty makes alrighty.

But is that what you do believe?

 

[MennoSota]

I see that you've alluded to scripture towards the end of your statement and that you've taken the view that whatever God does is by definition good and that human beings are God's creations so he may dispose of them any way he likes and no justifiable complaint can be made against his actions no matter how apparently horrific and apparently immoral they are. If that is your perspective then no argument no matter how cogent can be brought against your position that you will not dismiss. That being so I think your contribution is complete despite it making a case against God as moral and there being any kind of objective morality except that might makes right and almighty makes alrighty.

But is that what you do believe?

You want to insist on being the standard Creator of morality. I reject your assertion to do so. I accept and support God's right and authority to determine morality and set his own standards, which all creation is in subjection to.

 

[Andrew]

Hello.
I recommend this book if you want to consider the many "contradictions" in the NT. There are some gospels that don't agree with the other (very tiny non important things but they are there none the less) but there is no alarm. The book is written by a detective who was an atheist and decided to investigate the bible... TURNS OUT that 'if' the stories were dead on and matched perfectly with each other in minor detail -then THAT would be a cause for an alarm because it would sound rehearsed! This man did an excellent job of examining the inconsistencies, testimonies ALWAYS differ and after reading this book it helps me see things with a sceptics angle as well as an investigators angle... this fellow became a Christian after investigating this 'cold case'

 

[MoreCoffee]

Hello.
I recommend this book if you want to consider the many "contradictions" in the NT. There are some gospels that don't agree with the other (very tiny non important things but they are there none the less) but there is no alarm. The book is written by a detective who was an atheist and decided to investigate the bible... TURNS OUT that 'if' the stories were dead on and matched perfectly with each other in minor detail -then THAT would be a cause for an alarm because it would sound rehearsed! This man did an excellent job of examining the inconsistencies, testimonies ALWAYS differ and after reading this book it helps me see things with a sceptics angle as well as an investigators angle... this fellow became a Christian after investigating this 'cold case'

Thanks for your post. I agree that some of the lesser contradictions between the three synoptic gospels can be regarded as witness recount differences that have no special significance. But I think that some contradictions may not be amenable to that kind of treatment and even the cases that are leave one with the problem of the inerrancy of the holy scriptures being subject to human errors in recall. If the accounts about what happened on the day of the resurrection are different - one angel, two angels, a gardener, seeing Jesus, not seeing Jesus and so forth - then how can the verbal inspiration and inerrancy of every word of the holy scriptures be true? Either the witnesses all tell the truth and nothing but the truth or they tell only their recollection of what happened even if it is not true.

But there still remains the moral issues raised by atheists and present in holy scripture. Genocide is either okay or it is not. I believe it is not okay. No amount of explaining away can make genocide good and moral even if God is the one who did it. Just because a bible story says God committed genocide that does not make it good, or does it, in your opinion?

 

[Andrew]

Thanks for your post. I agree that some of the lesser contradictions between the three synoptic gospels can be regarded as witness recount differences that have no special significance. But I think that some contradictions may not be amenable to that kind of treatment and even the cases that are leave one with the problem of the inerrancy of the holy scriptures being subject to human errors in recall. If the accounts about what happened on the day of the resurrection are different - one angel, two angels, a gardener, seeing Jesus, not seeing Jesus and so forth - then how can the verbal inspiration and inerrancy of every word of the holy scriptures be true? Either the witnesses all tell the truth and nothing but the truth or they tell only their recollection of what happened even if it is not true.

But there still remains the moral issues raised by atheists and present in holy scripture. Genocide is either okay or it is not. I believe it is not okay. No amount of explaining away can make genocide good and moral even if God is the one who did it. Just because a bible story says God committed genocide that does not make it good, or does it, in your opinion?

Genocide? Was the flood just? God is protecting israel by leading an army against savages because they were a sacrificing babies and what not, the rape thing is also bunk, they took the virgins as wives because they might be unclean (literally, stds) otherwise... then Jews were very aware of impurity, most likely why foreskin was removed because of bacteria growth..
Atheist will argue "so and so left out this so he must disagree with so and so over here"... that is simply because the scrolls could only fit so much at a time and so certain things were probably left out due to limited space (or they would have to start a whole new scroll)...
Also they don't like to take ancient testimonies and writings at any value at all, sadly they can quote Plato but "oh no, not those silly Christian text"... all of history came to us in written form so they lose that argument too.
Richard Dawkins thought he had a case when he asked Christians who authored the first book of the NT, and then a fellow asked him what the full title of Origins of Species was and he couldn't remember, then he muttered "oh God" as in 'help me remember' lol those pesky 'Athesist'

 

[Andrew]

Also the length of a scroll is about the length of Luke. The others come very close if not even the exact same length [emoji41]

 

[MennoSota]

Genocide? Was the flood just? God is protecting israel by leading an army against savages because they were a sacrificing babies and what not, the rape thing is also bunk, they took the virgins as wives because they might be unclean (literally, stds) otherwise... then Jews were very aware of impurity, most likely why foreskin was removed because of bacteria growth..
Atheist will argue "so and so left out this so he must disagree with so and so over here"... that is simply because the scrolls could only fit so much at a time and so certain things were probably left out due to limited space (or they would have to start a whole new scroll)...
Also they don't like to take ancient testimonies and writings at any value at all, sadly they can quote Plato but "oh no, not those silly Christian text"... all of history came to us in written form so they lose that argument too.
Richard Dawkins thought he had a case when he asked Christians who authored the first book of the NT, and then a fellow asked him what the full title of Origins of Species was and he couldn't remember, then he muttered "oh God" as in 'help me remember' lol those pesky 'Athesist'

An atheist assumes a post-modern morality. This means that you determine good and bad, right and wrong, by your own determination. All other humans get judged by the atheist by the relativistic determination of the atheist. The atheist then applies that same post-modern morality to judging the God of the Bible. The atheist puts God on trial and places him/herself on the judgment seat, assuming her/himself to be righteous and just in judgment. The atheist does not judge her/himself as bad or corrupt, but instead views him/herself as worthy of being a judge. Being incapable of seeing his/her self as corrupt, s/he pridefully declares God to be the corrupt one.
It is pointless to argue with such a fool for that person will never concede their own corruption.