Jump to content


Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum

Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account.
As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends.

Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games.

If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top.
If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen.

Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse
 

Photo
- - - - -

Enough Room in the Ark?


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#31 hipowertech

hipowertech

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts

Posted 20 December 2007 - 02:35 AM

If the apostoles are going to give details concerning his death and he did indeed get hung and then fell and exploded on the ground, why not say that? Further, there is a discrepancy in what happened to the 30 pieces of silver between Acts and Matt. He CANNOT have cast them away AND used them to buy a plot of land unless you again add your own part to the story that he cast them away and then went back to get them - something else not supportable and easily said by both recorders if that was the case.



I dont know why, likely reason... One had first hand knowledge of the hanging. The other had first had or common knowledge of the gruesome entrail episode and each recorded exactly what they could verify first hand? either way it does not reflect a conflict of truth. I'm just saying that BOTH can be true without negating the other account.

As far as the Purchase of the field, it is clear what Judas did with the money, and it is clear that he did not personally make the purchase of the field. The religious leaders made the purchase because they could not return the coinage to the treasury; it was blood money. According to their culture they most likely purchased the field in the name of Judas because if they did not it would mean they had accepted the coin. Thus Judas bought the field but not first hand. Again there is no contradiction here, just a deeper understanding of the history if one takes the time to study it and allow the richness of the story to unfold. It's not called the "living word" for nothing.

regarding your laundry list of contradictions, I will gladly discuss or debate anything related to the Word, one thing at a time. Again I will ask nicely, one thing at a time, were not trying to discredit a witness on the stand by throwing a list of discrepancies at them to sway a jury. This is not a trial, its a discussion.

I have said repeatedly that I respect you, and your level of education. That has not changed.

Originally we started with "Was there enough room in the Ark?"
We debated the justification of using a standard or Egyptian cubit.
We have run all over about geology and other scientific fields.
We are now discussing whether or not the Scriptures are reliable in the telling of the story.
You have stated plainly that you doubt the historocity of the word but believe the Gospel.
I have stated plainly that I trust the historocity of the Word and I believe the Gospel.

My greatest hope in this discussion in a nutshell is this.
That people who read our discussion will develop a thirst to go and see for themselves what the Bible says and not put their faith in a couple yuks like us.

Lastly, I totally believe in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and his guidance of believers. To trust my feelings without the Word as an exacting measure though is a slippery slope indeed. If my feelings ever disagree with the scriptures then I too could be deceived except that I rely on the infallibility of the Word to align my beliefs to. Many cults have been formed by saying that this or that prophet had the word that was above the scriptures. Often it is said that certain texts are more reliable than the scriptures and there is where you will find legitimate contradictions. Let us always take care to follow the call of the Bereans and search the scriptures to see if what a man says is true. I am fallible, don't trust me. GOD is not, put your trust in Him.

Love and Peace,
  • 0

#32 Writersblock

Writersblock

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 597 posts

Posted 21 December 2007 - 02:00 AM

were not trying to discredit a witness on the stand by throwing a list of discrepancies at them to sway a jury



Such wasn't my intent. I think that the infallability of the historical aspect of the bible bears on the original subject and that is why we were on that track. I merely gave those examples to illustrate that a person could reasonably see discrepancy in the bible. Part of the problem with the bible is that when these discrepancies occur and a person dogmatically clings to the assumption that the entirity of the bible is infallable, then the bible gets misinterpreted to make sense where none actually exists. No offense intended at all, but I think this is how you read the Judas story. I don't think there's anything within the context and text of the bible to assume that both stories are the same story. In fact, I see just the opposite. Similarly, there could be contextual or translative mistakes in the Noah story that would account for the "cubit" problem as I see it. You suggest that the "waters prevailing upward 15 cubits" means something different than what I read and you use your own interpolation to make it make sense with your paradigm. I think we should test that in the spirit of the original conversation. I think that the proposition that the bible is absolutely infallable as a history bears on the discussion. The only way to test it is to point to passages I see as fallable, and test your theory of cohesiveness and infallability.
  • 0

#33 hipowertech

hipowertech

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts

Posted 21 December 2007 - 02:44 AM

1st. no offense taken, your opinion is always heard and respected.
2nd. I will try to state as best I can where you wanted to go next from your last statement.

I think that the proposition that the bible is absolutely infallable as a history bears on the discussion. The only way to test it is to point to passages I see as fallable, and test your theory of cohesiveness and infallability.




I think you are saying we will take one conflict, as you see it, and measure it against a logical set of rules or tests.
If this is the case I will say this.
con·tra·dic·tion
Pronunciation: ?kän-tr?-?dik-sh?n
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1: act or an instance of contradicting
2 a: a proposition, statement, or phrase that asserts or implies both the truth and falsity of something b: a statement or phrase whose parts contradict each other
3 a: logical incongruity b: a situation in which inherent factors, actions, or propositions are inconsistent or contrary to one another

A contradiction would prove fallability in the text. I know that anything but the most blatant contradictions are hard to prove or even define. But disproving a contradiction is rather simple. Can both statements or truisms coexist without cancelling each other out. If this is the track you wish to continue on then I am game.

Again, I am not a theologian or professionally trained in any form of apologetics. I will not even claim in the least bit capable of the discussion we have enjoyed thus far. I am confident however that the Bible does not contradict itself, and that is why I can face Giants with nothing but a strip of leather and a rock. The real trick is to make sure you run toward them in the name of GOD, not self.

I also understand that you have made many references to misunderstanding and misreading of a mistranslation. What translation are you suggesting we use, because that in itself can stymie our entire discussion for quite some time and even cause us to enter a new thread leaving this one until it is resolved. I personally use NKJV KJV for most of my studies and will occasionally reference other versions like the NASB through [url:6e4a0]http://www.blueletterbible.org[/url] since I don't personally read greek hebrew or aramaic.

I'll end for now to read your response.

Peace
  • 0

#34 Writersblock

Writersblock

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 597 posts

Posted 21 December 2007 - 07:53 AM

I use the KJV but I recognize that any modern interpretation will be different from original Hebrew and Aramaic. Since I am fluent in neither I do the best I can.

But disproving a contradiction is rather simple. Can both statements or truisms coexist without cancelling each other out.

This is close to where I am going, but more to the point, I merely point out that the Bible shows "gaps" or "holes" or "contradictions" if contained to the four corners of the text. Any attempt by anyone to rectify them begs that person's own opinions as to the "true" meaning of the bible. My point is that the history of the bible is where these "gaps" turn up. As to the cohesiveness of a doctrinal "gospel" I don't see any similar "gaps." That is kind of where I am going with my whole train of thought. The "history" is fallable, the "doctrine" is not.

A major way I learn is to stick to my own well thought out assumptions until I can be shown the fallicy of my beliefs. That's why I sometimes throw things out there for you to respond to. I see them as potential in roads into the weaknesses in my ideas and invite you to crack them open or seal them shut for me.

I am not a theologian or professionally trained in any form of apologetics.

Nor am I. I use only my own readings and experience to frame my belief structure. My readings have included the KJV and the NKJV with annotations, the Koran, the Teachings of Buddha, the Book of Mormon, the Apocrypha, translations of the dead sea scrolls, and a translation of the Talmud. Also, I have studied some eastern philosophy - Taoism and a little Confucionism. That's pretty much the sum of where I am coming from. In all that, I believe Christ is who he was proclaimed to be, and I believe that the entire bible spoke of Christ and his mission of salvation. I also don't believe that the Bible is 100% infallable - as I explained above.

Let's see where we can go.
  • 0

#35 Agama

Agama

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 25 December 2007 - 07:23 PM

This is a SPECIAL Christmas present for Hipowertech and Writersblock.

Three quotes and a humble recommendation.


"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."
-Einstein-

There are two ways of proving the truths of our religion; one by the power of reason, the other by the authority of him who speaks.
We do not make use of the latter, but of the former. "We do not say, 'This must be believed, for Scripture, which says it, is divine.' But we say that it must be believed for such and such a reason, which are feeble arguments, as reason may be bent to everything." ----
"We understand nothing of the works of God, if we do not take as a principle that He has willed to blind some and enlighten others."
-Blaise Pascal -
PENSEES Section VIII THE FUNDAMENTALS OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION #361 & #363 CIR. 1670

"The Only thing we learn from history is we never learn"
-Agama-

Take a quiet break and know the joy of "studying" the GREAT minds.

In Christ's love.
Agama
  • 0

#36 hipowertech

hipowertech

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts

Posted 27 December 2007 - 04:47 PM

Thank You Agama,

May the reason for this season not be lost on any of us, especially me and my house.
I will not be posting for a while while I reflect on the love GOD had for me in sending his son to die for my innumerable sins.

May GOD bless all those who visit these forums with the truth that is His alone.

Peace,

HPT
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users