You’re leaving out something very important in the discussion. You are asking me questions, and I’m responding.

Also, note your choice of terms:
“To which I thought you said it mattered to be correct if telling some theist they were full of it because the Bible didn’t say what was being claimed.”
“If not correct the theist would say, here’s evidence you are wrong.”
“And I said there was no way any theist could use the Bible to justify their beliefs.”
“There is no interpretation ‘correct or not’ which can be made to correlate with theist claims about what is supposed to be in the Bible without cherry picking.”

In all four of these sentences, you use the term “theists”. None of your points are about theists–they are only about biblical literalists. This is muddled thinking. The same muddled thinking applies to your confusion between Christianity and biblical literalism.

Muddled thinking is just plain invalid. Surely you would not want to defend it, right? Surely it matters, doesn’t it?

Am I wrong about theism not being equivolent to Christianity? Am I wrong about Christianity not being equivolent to biblical literalism? Am I wrong that you’re justifying the use of lists of inconsistencies, atrocities, and/or absurdities against Christianity? Am I wrong that they only legitimately apply to biblical literalists?

I’m quite aware that there are inconsistencies in the bible. That’s not the point. There is a lot of misinformation about inconsistencies that are not really there in the skeptic community, and wrong is wrong is wrong, no matter how worthy the cause or how damning the claim is against detractors. Mistranslations and anachronisms should NOT be included in lists of inconsistencies.

This was where this discussion began. You then noted

As for this:
“It isn’t the Bible the Judeo-Christian religion is based on. It’s based on [fill in the blank]’s interpretation of the Bible today.”
…I agree–that lines up fairly well with what I’ve seen. But as for this:

“One person’s interpretation is as valid as the next’s.”
…I disagree. There is a correct interpretation, and that interpretation is the one the original author would have had. So someone seeking this interpretation and using reasonable steps to get it would in fact have a more valid interpretation than someone who does not.

and

The first part, I disagree with. Of course you can reasonably interpret text written in a book without cherry picking/rationalizing. It may be harder to do in some cases, but it’s definitely possible.

IE There is a correct interpretation.

But the discussion began with 2 versions of Genesis that I believe you were saying could be reconciled if properly seen in the original language.

And I said, who cares, you can’t reconcile everything no matter how close you come to the author’s intended meaning.

To which I thought you said it mattered to be correct if telling some theist they were full of it because the Bible didn’t say what was being claimed. If not correct the theist would say, here’s evidence you are wrong.

And I said there was no way any theist could use the Bible to justify their beliefs. There is no interpretation ‘correct or not’ which can be made to correlate with theist claims about what is supposed to be in the Bible without cherry picking.

Now I don’t know what esoteric direction you’ve taken off on here.

This could be terminology. I don’t consider it to be “cherry picking” unless someone specifically is supporting a grander notion and picking out the things that make it look good; this seems to agree with what other sources describe as the meaning of “cherry picking” as well. IF someone believes the entire bible is true in some fashion, you may have standing. IF they believe the entire bible is a potential source of inspirtation, you may have standing. But if a person is Christian, and is not a literalist, they are not necessarily in either category.

A good example would be:

“My problem is when I hear the claim, “God is love” and all the versions and related themes. That isn’t what the Bible says unless you cherry pick.”

So, let’s say someone is a Christian. Let’s say they make the claim, “God is love”. And let’s say you identify a particular section of the bible that suggests otherwise. If that Christian is a literalist, he has some explaining to do. That’s fine.

Now, what if the Christian is not a literalist? Non-literalist Christianity does not center on the bible, so should you point out something in the bible that says otherwise, what exactly would be the issue?

You may could find issues with the belief systems of such people, but you don’t really have a basis to use what the bible says against them, unless there’s some means by which you can first establish this basis. Such would only occur, however, on a case by case basis. But why would such people use the bible at all? Well, why not?

I propose a sanity check. Every time you say “Christian”, I would propose you imagine and include an illiterate follower of the teachings of Jesus, based on hearsay, before the first canon.

“And typically the vast majority of believers don’t actually practice what they portray their beliefs to be either. It’s more image than substance.”

I’m confused. This could possibly be true, but let’s just say that it is. Why would it matter? Are you trying to judge Christians in general? Or the average Christian?

“As such, it’s not very important to me to fuss over whether or not there are 384 inconsistencies or 10.”

It still seems to be a discussion of how many though. My point isn’t about how many, it’s about which. And my point isn’t about reducing quantity either–it’s about being correct. I can very easily see that should you chase down the real meanings (and I still say, there’s a criteria to judge that), you may actually wind up with more than 384 of them. Or less. Or quite possibly, by odd coincidence, exactly that many. I don’t really care.

Personally, I think the larger inconsistencies are stronger than the technical ones. You could ALWAYS explain away such and such as not quite meaning so and so, and you’re not really understanding this and that because you’re not spiritual, etc. But when you dig out what the people profess strongly, even if they are literalists, and expose them to what’s inconsistent THERE, it’s pretty hard to dodge. It would seem to me that the types of problems you are having are in this category, so I would ask you–why even bother with the 384 inconsistencies in the first place? Why even point to a listing? “The problem of evil” can be argued quite effectively without a single possible reference to the bible.

The rest of the links don’t really mean much to me. I’ve seen atrocity and absurdity lists before as well, and I’m not sure they are immune to anything they may apply to with regards to my comments. As for the particulars, they don’t really seem to apply to me anyway; it’s kind of hard to have issues with your Christian doctrines when you have none.

I don’t find, “but the text in itself is just deemed to somehow be inspirational (what exactly “somehow” means depends on the person)”, to be much of an argument supporting your categorizing of ‘inspirational guide’ as not cherry picking and ‘literal belief’ as cherry picking. ‘Somehow’ ‘the person’ cherry picks the inspiration.

My gripe with the inconsistencies isn’t how many there are or the fact there actually are any. My problem is when I hear the claim, “God is love” and all the versions and related themes. That isn’t what the Bible says unless you cherry pick. There are all sorts of horrible things the god in the Bible directs its followers to do. There are some passages that support the usual claims of love thy brother, and a whole bunch of passages that don’t. In my opinion, people claim their religion involves whatever they deem and they claim the Bible says so. It only says so if you cherry pick out of it.

And typically the vast majority of believers don’t actually practice what they portray their beliefs to be either. It’s more image than substance.

As such, it’s not very important to me to fuss over whether or not there are 384 inconsistencies or 10. It wouldn’t even matter if there were none. Because the Christian religion and the Bible are far from the loving image that is claimed, inconsistencies or not.

Injustice in the Bible
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/inj/long.html
The book, called the Bible, is filled with passages equally horrible, unjust and atrocious. This is the book to be read in schools in order to make our children loving, kind and gentle! This is the book they wish to be recognized in our Constitution as the source of all authority and justice! — Robert Green Ingersoll, The Gods, (1872)

Cruelty and violence in the Bible
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
There is no text more barbaric than the Old Testament of the Bible–books like Deuteronomy and Leviticus and Exodus. The Quran pales in comparison. — Sam Harris, Beliefnet inverview

Intolerance in the Bible
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html

And then there is the tired Christian claim that everything cruel, violent and intolerant is from the Old Testament. Jesus came and changed all that. No he didn’t. There is no passage in the New Testament that has Jesus saying, “forget everything you’ve learned until now” or any other words to that effect.

And here are the same three categories with only the New Testament searched.

Injustice in the New Testament
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/inj/nt.html

Cruelty and Violence in the New Testament
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt.html

Intolerance in the New Testament
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/nt.html

Most of our discussion on this forum (between you and I specifically) was, in my mind, simply an elaboration of what I meant in prior posts. I think this comment in itself covers the first few paragraphs of your response–in particular, I don’t think you’ve called Christians idiots, or “pulled out the ammo”. My specific concern was this specific “contradiction” which I believe to be false; my general concern is more about why I think it’s important not to be wrong (though I would think this should be important anyway, but too many fall into the trap of “this is obviously wrong, therefore, it is wrong”, and trip over something subtle, due to the fact that what’s “obvious” really isn’t all that obvious–that covers my beef with Irishman for example).

As for how using the bible “as a guide” differs from cherry picking, that’s quite easy. The viewpoint of what the bible is is simply flipped around from the literalist view. Instead of it being something brought down by God and handed to man, you simply view it as being written by men who were inspired by this god; all such men are viewed as fallable, but the text in itself is just deemed to somehow be inspirational (what exactly “somehow” means depends on the person).

For what it’s worth, I don’t tend to place a lot of importance on “theism versus atheism”, but nonetheless, I am an atheist. You say that it’s unusual for atheists to be concerned about which contradictions are real and which aren’t; that’s possibly true. If so, I’m probably unusual. But I would have you consider this: most of the atheists I know, I know are atheists, because they told me they are atheists. I’m fairly sure this set isn’t a good representative of atheists in general, because atheists that make themselves known as atheists tend to include a disproportionate number who place some particular importance on atheism.

I’m aware that I come off as a theist though when getting involved in such discussions, because I have strange mannerisms (such as capitalizing the word “god” when it refers to a (pseudo?)monotheistic entity and is used as a name). As such, I think it’s pretty interesting that you even entertained it as a possibility if not a likelihood, and I think that’s a testament that you’re being rational about this. Now rationality I place importance on!

…debunk non-literalist Christians.

These are the points I picked out of your post and hopefully I’m addressing all the points you made.

First, I hope I didn’t call any believers idiots. Though from my perspective believing in the Biblical religions appears as foolish as believing in Zeus. To Christians and other similarly faithful, they would most likely think the same about Zeus believers yet can’t see their religion is no different. Being intelligent and educated doesn’t preclude being indoctrinated at some point in one’s life. Unfortunately, once indoctrinated, change is unlikely if the degree of indoctrination has passed the individual’s threshold for permanency.

As to the list of contradictions, it is but a single piece of evidence that the Bible is not qualitatively different from other collections of stories people have developed over the centuries and believed in as evidence of or as a record of the evidence for gods. Christians and the rest of the believers in whichever version of the Bible, Torah or Quran one claims is the correct version view all religions not their own as collections of mythical stories, yet elevate their own collection to a unique status. Objectively none are unique.

I don’t view the various lists on the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible as ammunition to argue with anyone, nor do I expect any person truly indoctrinated to ever face the reality of the evidence. If they haven’t seen the obvious in their entire lifetime, they are highly unlikely to see it just because I point it out.

There are times when a skeptic or a scientist wouldn’t want to leave opportunities for criticism of the criticism. But I can’t think of a single instance when such an opportunity would have any impact in arguing with a theist. They are by nature arguing irrationally.

That leaves your last premise which I find may be a clue to your own particular version of theism which you think is the superior version and which you think is somehow different from all the myths and other versions of the Biblical religions. I said “clue” so if I have judged wrong and you are an atheist, I’ll be surprised but I wouldn’t argue. It is unusual for an atheist to voice concern over the distinction between 384 contradictions and ‘x’ contradictions. It is also unusual for an atheist to be concerned about making an error arguing with a theist which would give the theist an edge. I think most of us have come to expect theists to ignore evidence and facts.

The premise I don’t accept is that one can use the Bible as a “guide” without all the cherry picking. It goes with the secondary premise that the problem with the Christian religion is only with the believers who reject science.

So tell me this, what does it mean, “there are Christians who use [the Bible] as a guide”? How does that differ in terms of picking and choosing from those that pick and choose the literal parts? How can a book with any contradictions, and with so many inconsistencies guide anyone unless that one picks and chooses whatever is convenient to be guided by out of the book (or collection of books)?

There is a continuum of Bible believers from strict literalists to those you describe as using the Bible as a guide. There is no point on that continuum where you can say, from this perspective the contradictions and inconsistencies all fall into place and make sense. There is no place on that continuum where the Bible looks any different from the myriad of other religious texts and collections of stories people all over the world developed as their explanations of the Universe.

There is no theme running throughout all the texts which indicates they are all versions of the same “guide” and represent a human interpretation of real gods. There is a theme, however, running through all the texts that these were human attempts to explain the Universe before humans developed or discovered the scientific process of observation. I observe no evidence of gods in the Universe and the evidence I do observe, (which the flaws are only one tiny piece of), supports the simplest explanation for the Bible which is that men wrote it and no real gods inspired it.

Sure–I’d be happy to restate my point.

First, I’ll ask a rhetorical question. There’s this list of 384 biblical contradictions on the web that you have cited here. What is the purpose of this list? What is the point in maintaining it?

The collection we refer to as “the bible” is a Christian creation, for sure. There are Christians of all types–some Christians recognize that the bible was written by men, and use it as a guide. There’s various views about the old testament, and its implications. There were Christians before the bible was written. Tell any of these people that such and such text in the bible contradicts with this other text in the bible, and they may simply say, so what?

Then there’s a particular class of Christians who cause a lot of problems. They do exactly as you prescribe–they pick and choose from the bible, interpret text over here as metaphorical, assemble text from various places in various contexts and come up with these new doctrines, etc. These are the Christians who resist science, tugging back at the progress of humanity. They are the biblical literalists.

It’s for the sake of these people that such listings exist. As idiotic as you may claim these people are, they are not, in fact, stupid. They are the way they are due to aspects of human psychology. Rationalize is a very good term for what they do–they take inconsistencies and try to figure out a way in which they are not really inconsistent. But we both know this isn’t true–the bible is full of inconsistencies!

So we have a list of inconsistencies. When these literalists start causing problems, we drag out the ammo. We pick up a few of these things and slam it towards them. This should cause discomfort to them–cognitive dissonance at least–by being exposed to the fact that it’s impossible to even have a consistent interpretation of the bible in the first place.

Now, there’s a problem with the list. This same human psychology that causes people to become biblical literalists interferes with the detractor’s ability to recognize real inconsistencies. So they make mistakes. They add things to this list that are not genuinely inconsistent–they are, instead, based on misunderstandings.

When those inconsistencies are used as ammo to attack biblical literalists, there’s a problem! Why? Because these people aren’t really stupid; because their lives revolve around the bible, ironically, they become better experts on the bible than the detractors. And, due to the way they think, they tend to want to demonize detractors–if there are 384 things in a list, and 40 of them are fake, they’ll pull out 40 things “at random” that they know aren’t real, argue against them, and point out how much this is evidence that you require the spirit of God inside you to guide you to interpret the bible.

Pretty ineffective, huh? These Christians may explain away the rest of the inconsistencies as well, pulling out other psychological stunts, reinterpretations, games of telephone with translations, whatever. But they are bothered when they do so. If you have a false inconsistency in the list, however, they can and do focus on those, and they wind up having a psychological “out”.

So, if you are a detractor, and you use this list for ammo, you need to have pretty high standards for what constitutes an inconsistency, and you had better be right, else you’re just going to make yourself look bad. The temptation to put more on the list, defend inconsistencies that “seem right”, etc, works against you.

My side point is how some detractors borrow the arguments from biblical literalists to show that the bible is literally true, when they try to debunk non-literalist Christians. This is just poor thinking, however–just as you don’t have a reason to buy that the bible is literally true, the non-biblical literalist has no reason as well. But this particular point bothers me a bit less, since non-literalists don’t tend to be as much of a drag on human progress.

You are merely evaluating single passages and books and claiming there really aren’t 384 contradictions, we have some technicalities wrong, translations wrong, etc. Who cares unless the text is supposed to describe beliefs and rules? A literary scholar? Sure…. Me? Why would I? It isn’t even interesting reading except in the context of the religion that has formed around it.

You claim you are not defending the Bible as “the word of God”. Could you then perhaps restate your point? Are you saying there are less than 384 contradictions? I wouldn’t bother to argue or check, it isn’t relevant.

Are you saying there are NO contradictions? And your rationale is you weren’t talking about contradictions from author to author or within the Bible as a complete book. You were only talking about contradictions within a single writer’s work. And only the author could confirm actual meaning. Again, I wouldn’t bother to argue or check, it isn’t relevant.

Are you saying every believer in the Bible today has it wrong and at some point in the past, or, if we had the “true” works which should be in the Bible there wouldn’t be any contradictions? To that I say there is no evidence and that implies you think there is an underlying ‘real’ god with a ‘real’ message and rules.

In other words, as single works typical modern Biblical analyses don’t apply. Who cares? As a Bible, that is supposed to be the basis of a religion, the Bible is full of flaws, contradictions, etc. My comment, “You just cannot reasonably interpret the Bible in any way without cherry picking, rationalizing, and assigning various values to parts of it such as this is a metaphor and that is a fact. There is no guide to how this is to be done”, only applies in the context of the Bible as a whole, and as it is claimed to be by believers. In any other context, who cares? I certainly don’t.

I found your post quite confusing at first, until I realized what was going on. I said this:
“when the same book, within the short space of what would be a single conversation, has seeming contradictions, that makes me even more suspicious that they are just being misunderstood, so it counts as requiring further analysis. … Multiple authors from different sources? Not so much–just a reasonable understanding of “was this really what they meant” is enough–odds that there’s a conflict will be high enough in such cases.”

Apparantly, somehow, you got from that that I have it in my mind that the bible was written by a single author. This is not the case; still, there are texts in the bible written from the same author. What I’m getting at is that you have to keep these things in mind when judging what is contradictory and what is not.

Furthermore, the specific meaning you get when you interpret text has nothing to do with whether or not you interpret it correctly. The only relevant factor in “valid translation” is whether or not what you think it means matches what the author meant to write. Perhaps you’re forgetting I’m not a Christian–I’m not bound to anything the bible says. Your point about whether or not we should stone disobedient children, then, is lost. The question was never, should we stone disobedient children. Definitely we should not! The question is more, is it a valid translation that we should stone disobedient children? My point is that the criteria for validity is what the author meant, so the question becomes–did the author mean that we should stone disobedient children?

Then we have this:
“You just cannot reasonably interpret the Bible in any way without cherry picking, rationalizing, and assigning various values to parts of it such as this is a metaphor and that is a fact. There is no guide to how this is to be done.”

Surely, though, as you felt the need to remind me, you are aware of the fact that the Bible was written by different authors! What exactly is the bible? It’s a collection of books, written over a vast period of time. There’s another common anachronism some people make here, which is the concept that the authors of these books were writing the bible.

This is definitely incorrect–they were not writing the bible. They were merely writing books. “The bible” exists as a collection of these books–a cannon. It’s more like a small library. The actual collection of the books constituting the bible was performed very recently, relatively speaking.

My point is this. You merely have a number of books written over time. In order for what you just said to be true, therefore, one of the following has to hold:
* The books that happened to have been collected into the cannon we now call “the bible”, are special for some reason; in particular, they require a different set of criteria to judge what they mean
* Or alternately, what you’re saying isn’t particularly applicable to the bible, but to all books

I certainly do not believe the books making up the bible are particularly special in this regard–that leaves the latter. But then, the implications of that quote are grander, aren’t they? They lead to something like this:
“You just cannot reasonably interpret a book in any way without cherry picking, rationalizing, and assigning various values to parts of it such as this is a metaphor and that is a fact. There is no guide to how this is done.”

The first part, I disagree with. Of course you can reasonably interpret text written in a book without cherry picking/rationalizing. It may be harder to do in some cases, but it’s definitely possible.

The second part is true–there’s no guide to how this is done. But this is also true of almost everything of importance. How are we going to test string theory? How are we going to fit dark matter into the standard model? There’s no guide to how this is done–you’re supposed to use your brain; and sometimes, it’s very hard, and it requires a lot of discipline. Those who pretend knowledge is common sense, easy, obvious, and follows straightforward from simple rules, are just fooling themselves.

Once again, I’m probably being mistaken for a Christian, because there’s something here that’s supposed to be an inconsistency, and I don’t buy it. But I’m not–and even if I were, it shouldn’t matter. Are we trying to be correct, or fight Christians?

I find this an overly idealistic point of view. And are you forgetting that the Bible has more than one author so contradictions are not surprising?

When I speak of the interpretation of one’s choosing I am not speaking of literal translation. That would be even worse. Are we to stone children to death who disobey their parents? And if not then who decides homosexuality is an abominable sin but disobedient children will be tolerated? Should we send people with lesions away from the city and have the priest re-examine them every week until it’s deemed OK for them to enter? (Handwashing would have been a more intelligent command to prevent disease, BTW.)

You just cannot reasonably interpret the Bible in any way without cherry picking, rationalizing, and assigning various values to parts of it such as this is a metaphor and that is a fact. There is no guide to how this is to be done.

It seems you would use ‘mistranslations’ as the magic rationalization. Even if that were the case, it makes my case. How would such a book with so many mistranslations be the least bit useful?

Okay, reading your post more carefully, it seems I have something else to comment on–the last paragraph. As for “earth being flat”, I think there’s a lot of myth that people used to believe this anyway, before say Columbus (the modern myth being that Columbus proved the world round–but people knew it was round before that). However, when going further back and to the specific culture of Hebrews, I’m not quite sure. So on this I’d be open. As for things like Levitical law, those can get pretty harsh, and many literalists do indeed excuse the half away they don’t like with “we’re not living under the law” and pick the other half they do like up and beat people over the head with it, and such is indeed illogical. So for you’re general point, I’m completely with you.

As for this:
“It isn’t the Bible the Judeo-Christian religion is based on. It’s based on [fill in the blank]’s interpretation of the Bible today.”
…I agree–that lines up fairly well with what I’ve seen. But as for this:

“One person’s interpretation is as valid as the next’s.”
…I disagree. There is a correct interpretation, and that interpretation is the one the original author would have had. So someone seeking this interpretation and using reasonable steps to get it would in fact have a more valid interpretation than someone who does not. Oh, and if it’s old testament, he wasn’t a Christian–that’s for sure–so any “Judeo-Christian” perspective put into the interpretation would be warped.

I just did exactly that, and the results did kind of surprise me. It basically revealed that I had a better picture of what was going on than I thought.

Ancient Hebrew, apparantly, has only two verb tenses–perfect and imperfect. Perfect indicates an action that has been completed; imperfect indicates an action that has not yet been completed. (There are multiple other verb forms, but these are the only tenses).

Genesis, as well as a larger portion of the text of the old testament, is a form of poetry. In Ancient Hebrew poetry, a poetic device that is commonly used is a parallelism. A parallelism involves retelling the same event in different ways, or telling multiple stories, and–as the name suggests–making a parallel with the stories just written. The “and” construct is part of the form of the poetry–it links these blocks of stories together.

Not only did I find this out, but something else new arises for me. Even in Genesis 1, before Genesis 2, there are multiple blocks–so there’s not just two accounts, but several. This was something that never really made sense to me before, because of the text before the “first day” part of Genesis.

To avoid possibly being put into a “could be spam bucket” until Phil wakes up, I won’t post my source explicitly, but I got this from www ancient dash hebrew dot org. In full disclosure, the person/people running that site sound like crazy fundies, but I still have to believe they understand ancient hebrew.

As for “I ignore [some of] the inconsistencies as [errors in translation]“, yes, that about sums it up, and I think it’s fair as well. When I talk about what the bible means, being an atheist, there’s no context for me to discuss “what God wants me to know”, so the only other valid context I know of to meaningfully discuss it is “what the author meant”. The authors of old testament writings, of course, were very ancient, and in a fairly alien culture, and I never forget that they used different words, or that absolutely zero of them were Christian. So I tend to have pretty high standards when it comes to a claim that such and such is a “logical contradiction”–there are things that show up in translation that are obviously such, and things that may not be–the latter I think needs a bit more weight…

…but when the same book, within the short space of what would be a single conversation, has seeming contradictions, that makes me even more suspicious that they are just being misunderstood, so it counts as requiring further analysis. The way I figure it, odds are a lot higher that inconsistencies like this are merely you not knowing what they are saying (hell, native speakers here had problems understanding me in this thread, using MODERN English! And that’s not a strike against anyone–such is obviously prominent anyway)

Multiple authors from different sources? Not so much–just a reasonable understanding of “was this really what they meant” is enough–odds that there’s a conflict will be high enough in such cases.

I’m quite aware that there are inconsistencies in the bible. That’s not the point. There is a lot of misinformation about inconsistencies that are not really there in the skeptic community, and wrong is wrong is wrong, no matter how worthy the cause or how damning the claim is against detractors. Mistranslations and anachronisms should NOT be included in lists of inconsistencies.

So you are basically saying, “or, you ignore [some of] the inconsistencies as [errors in translation].

In the discussion with Irishman you have presented your case for one major inconsistency in the Bible. I’m not convinced. So it becomes your interpretation of the day. Irishman has another interpretation.

Have you made any effort to investigate the original text and/or are their Biblical scholars that support your interpretation or are you merely hypothesizing that explanation and claiming your hypothesis is evidence, “There is a lot of misinformation about inconsistencies that are not really there in the skeptic community”..

I wouldn’t be surprised if some number of the 384 inconsistencies are explainable in some way. However, interpretations of the Bible are continually changed to fit the realities (the Earth isn’t flat, it must be a metaphor), or the social/political climate (homosexuality is an abomination but we no longer execute kids who mouth off to their parents), of the day. If you can ignore all the internal and external inconsistencies in the Bible at will, what does that say about the Judeo-Christian religion that is supposed to be based on the Bible? It says that religion is based on shifting sand and the claim the Bible proves this or that or says we should do this or that or believe this or that is an unsupportable claim. It isn’t the Bible the Judeo-Christian religion is based on. It’s based on [fill in the blank]‘s interpretation of the Bible today. One person’s interpretation is as valid as the next’s.

In Genesis 2, God makes Man, then does all this other stuff (placing him in the Garden, making food trees, commanding him what he can and cannot eat, then decides Man shouldn’t be alone, parades all the animals past to be named), and then makes Woman.

Whether or not the animals were created in between or merely paraded past in between (and I’m not conceding the intent of the passage), there is still an inconsistency. It takes mental gymnastics to excuse the inconsistencies. That advocates can come up with the gymnastics does not eliminate that the gymnastics are required.

The writing construction between the two is very different. The first is explicitly chronological and precisely sequenced. In that version, the fish and birds come on day five, and the rest of the animals come early day six, and then Man and Woman come together at the end of day six. It seems inconsistent for something so chronologically consistent and explicit to turn around and change the sequence for the details, which is precisely what Gen. 2 does if you include it as a continuation of Gen 1. Gen 2 declares Man, then animals, then Woman. Gen 2 does not delineate or refer to the days referenced in Gen 1, which would make sense and be easy and logical for someone continuing the same story.

Gen. 2 is inherently a jump back in time only if you assume it is a retelling of the same event. In other words, you assume it is a continuation of the story, rather than an independent creation later appended to the Gen 1 story to meld two (or more) cultural traditions into one group.

skeptigirl, I think for the purposes of this conversation yy2bggggs is discussing this one particular case. Any other inconsistencies are not germane.

Your post is 90% fluff

It is not “just an argument” that this wasn’t written in English. This wasn’t written in English! We both know this. Do you appreciate how different a language can be?

Consider Japanese–a non-Romantic language. There’s no future tense, at all. Whereas in English, we speak of time as if it were a river, “flowing” from past to future, in Japanese, the future tends to be downhill, and the past uphill. So you do strange things to talk about the future, and you need context. Contrast this with another extreme–Latin, which has a verb tense for “to be going to have been being x”.

Now, note something interesting about Genesis 1 and 2. In Genesis 1, there’s a progression of time during the creation week–but each progression is very explicitely labeled with an exact count, relating to an ordinal day. Then you have Genesis 2.

Note something else. Genesis 2 follows Genesis 1, but chapters are really post hoc subdivisions. None of the text of the bible was written with chapters. So, really, Genesis 2 is just a convenient marker we have for a piece of text following Genesis 1. The content of the text itself had no such divisions at the time of writing; therefore, meaning cannot be inferred from the division.

Now, given this, consider the text of Genesis. Genesis 1 is chronologically ordered, but don’t you think something else is strange about it? There’s a continual mention of days next to everything, and not only this, there’s a specific ordinal attached to each day. Poetic license I could buy into, but it’s VERY realistic for me to determine that this language probably isn’t necessarily chronological.

Okay, so READ it. first day, second day, etc. Man and woman created sixth day, seventh day, and everything is complete. Not just complete, but explicitely stating it’s complete. A few more versus–contextual distance–and man is being created. Woman isn’t there yet. Remember, the text is just going along–there’s no new paragraph (paragraphs were invented later). Oh, and this is using the “and” construct, followed by a chronological text (with suspiciously spelled out ordering), with a jump back in time.

Inconsistency? That’s what you claim, but this seems entirely consistent to me with a language that doesn’t by default flow chronologically, and a contextual story jump back to the past to explain creation in more detail. There seems to be two discussions, but that’s all I can really gather from the text.

So, my points here?
* This was not written in English
* There are MODERN languages that differ significantly from our own in chronological structure
* The text is a continuous flow. Genesis 2 is right after Genesis 1. This is not a “next paragraph”
* There’s already jumping around in time to pick up context, in just going to the second account.
* The explicitness, and ordinal numbering, of the days seem consistent with a contextually ordered language.
* Any notions of chronological flow not explictly contextual should be held with suspicion

I’m open to this being an inconsistency, but all arguments so far are wrong, because they are using “obvious” rules which obviously do not apply.

It’s valid to think that a language could jump around in time to bring up details. There’s jumping around just to get to the second account! Furthermore, if this were two books, or two writings, you’d have more of a case–that it’s a single writing suggests that these things are a feature of the language itself.

skeptigirl:

I’m quite aware that there are inconsistencies in the bible. That’s not the point. There is a lot of misinformation about inconsistencies that are not really there in the skeptic community, and wrong is wrong is wrong, no matter how worthy the cause or how damning the claim is against detractors. Mistranslations and anachronisms should NOT be included in lists of inconsistencies.

So either you take the whole Bible as myth; you pick and choose which passages you are going to designate as literal and which passages are myths (keeping in mind there is no physical guide from God as to which is which); or, you pretend the Bible is literal and ignore all the inconsistencies as tests of faith and/or as something God knows but your puny human mind can’t comprehend and/or [fill in your own rationale].

For a list of and link to all the 384 contradictions in the King James version of the Bible, the “Skeptic’s Annotated Bible” is a great web resource.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Highlights:
Injustice
Absurdity
Cruelty and Violence
Intolerance
Contradictions
Family Values
Women
Science and History
Interpretation
Good Stuff
Prophecy
Sex
Language
Homosexuality

You can find the same information on the Book of Mormon and the Quran from the same site.

To (1), I think the point is irrelevant. It’s incorporated in point (2), so let’s address it. Genesis 1 has animals created in verses 20 – 25 (on both the fifth and sixth days), then Man and Woman created together in verse 27 (at the end of the sixth day). Genesis 2 has Man created, right after the rivers flow out of the ground, and before animals and plants. Then after the trees grow and Adam is lonely, God forms the animals (birds and land) past Adam, and when none are sufficient, then he creates Eve. There are lots of tense variation games to try to justify the differences in the sequence. The variations read like a post hoc attempt to cobble two completely different stories into one compatible flow without changing the inherent structure of each independent story. Oh, wait, that’s what they are.

Daffy was wrong with the description as “first year creative writing student” – Genesis 2 reads like a high school assignment for class – “Write a creation story off the top of your head, due by the end of class.” No effort is put into logical sequence or timeline. The writer wrote whatever came to mind in the order he thought of it. The random juggling of tense and “had done this”‘s is required because the writer didn’t edit after creating the ideas. That just makes no sense for a story crafted over time, expressed in oral tradition for decades or centuries before being written down. The oral tradition would craft the story to flow, in order to make it easier to remember and easier to follow. But tenses would be scrambled to death when combining two existing stories into one text and trying to make them consistent where they are not, without changing the existing flow of each story.

You argue that the original wasn’t English, so we can’t speak to the particular verb choice. But it’s not about that. It’s about the logical flow of the story. Take Genesis 2: if we maintain the story order and assign verb tenses to make the story work with Gen 1, it just doesn’t make sense. To paraphrase the story:

God made man, then remember that garden he made before? God placed man there, and then made all sorts of food trees grow…. Then God noticed Adam was lonely, and decided to make a suitable helper. So God remembered all the animals he had already created, and being lazy, decided to see if any of them would work. But they didn’t, so God make a wholly new being out of Adam’s rib, and called her Eve.

It’s bad writing (and not just my version). “Oh yeah, I forgot to mention…” shows up way too many times in the story. But take the story in isolation, and assign verb tenses that logically fit with the progression. Now you have God creating Man, then creating a garden for Man, and creating food. Then creating animals to try out as helpers, before finally determining the best helper would be similar and equal to Man, but female. The logical progression is much smoother, much more coherent. The sequence inconsistency with Gen 1 just can’t be dismissed so easily.

Waybackinthewayback, I identified the two creation narratives as E and J, in that order.

My bad. The first is J (earlier and more “mythological” in form) and the second is P (later and more intentionally “theological”).

Big fat hairy deal, but I do like to be accurate.

I’ll upshut now.

OK, let me see if I grok what you’re really saying.

Am I right that what you mean by “fictitious inconsistencies,” you mean that readers are deliberately looking for and setting up “inconsistencies” based on incomplete, erroneous, selective, or prejudiced reading – straw men, I believe the rhetorical term is – just so they can be knocked down?

Or is it that some readers are looking only at the surface, “seeing” things that aren’t there, and assuming that’s all there is?

Or is it that they’re just nitpicking?

Or is it a combination of ingredients, or something else entirely?

Language is so bleeping slippery! (I love it though. Sometimes I think that if I had it to do all over again, I’d go into language and linguistics as a career. Saints Lakoff and Chomsky, have mercy on my soul! =grin=)

Maybe I got my wires crossed at your initial use of the plural. What I read – and now I’m pretty sure it’s not what you meant – wasn’t that you were only pointing out only one inconsistency, but that you were saying it was the only inconsistency here.

The chronological inconsistency (see the reference I cited above) is real, and it’s the primary one scholars and theologians have focused on. (I grew up swimming in this stuff, remember?) But I understand that it wasn’t the one you were talking about, and the one you were talking about is just as absurd. (I always get a mental picture of “the animals went in two by two…” – followed immediately by a second picture, of the population of China lining up by fours and walking by in a procession that would never end because of the continual population increase.)

Poor Adam would have died of old age quite a few times – and he’s said to have lived to the ripe old age of 130 – long before he got through the invertebrates. He’d have gone nuckin’futs over the beetles! =horrors!= (I wonder if he’s spinning in his proverbial grave over all the previously unknown species we keep finding by the hundreds. More likely he’s heaving a tremendous sigh of relief that it’s not his problem any more. =another grin=)

How am I doing so far?

Scholars have been busting their brains over the problem of linguistic anachronism ever since linguistics was invented. A major goal of biblical scholarship is to get away from linguistic anachronism through study not only of biblical sources, but also of other ancient texts and what we’ve managed to learn about their constantly evolving cultural contexts. (That’s why Hebrew and Greek lexicons – not to mention Aramaic, Syriac, Chaldean, and others – run to multiple three-inch-thick volumes.)

It’s a can of worms even for people who spend their whole lives working on it. According to one estimate, there are over 30,000 variants and flat-out contradictions in the ancient sources, thousands of words that have multiple meanings, and a slew of words whose meanings are still uncertain – a particular problem in Hebrew.

Hebrew. Oy vay. In the Hebrew sources, only the consonants are original, and the vowel markings, or lack of them, can drive even a linguist nuckin’futs. The Masoretic text, the oldest known completely “vowelized” source, dates back only to about 700 c.e. Scholars of the Hebrew scriptures also have to deal with sources in Aramaic, a related language that was the lingua franca of much of Israel, particularly in the north (it was most likely the native language of Jesus, a northerner).

Then there are the foreign words and new ideas that crept in during the Babylonian exile, when Judaism had to learn to survive without the Temple. (The Talmud and Rabbinic Judaism arose in response to that displacement.) On top of all that, the Hebrew scriptures are inordinately fond of wordplay – often involving multiple languages.

………and then…………

What to do with the Greek Septuagint – a rabbinic translation in widespread use 2000 years ago, made for the non-Hebrew-speaking Jews who outnumbered the Hebrew speakers – or the fourth-century Latin Vulgate that’s been the basis of so much Christian theology via the Catholic Church?

Koiné (biblical) Greek versus classical Greek? The originally Greek John, Luke, and epistles versus the originally Aramaic Mark and Matthew?

And verily I say unto thee, Oy vay. Make that a barrel of worms. (I leave it the Gentle Reader to decide whether Adam got around to naming them all.)

Linguistic anachronisms arise mainly at the opposite end, from taking the words of a translation in their modern sense and/or without consideration for shades of meaning even in modern usage, or taking one or two sources as definitive, or relying on outdated scholarship.

Blast it, woman, shut the bleep up! =grin #3=

Ultimately we may have to agree to disagree on some of this stuff, but I think we all owe it to each other to try to understand where everyone is coming from and what we mean by our words themselves. No one learns anything from flinging all those bowling balls, dead cats, and Volkswagens (and definitely not from the poo!) I mentioned earlier.

I figure, light is always better than heat – although I could sure use a bit more heat in my apartment right now. (I get chilled easily – last night I was wearing my hoodie with the hood up.) But it goes without saying that yelling at each other online won’t do anything for that, and besides, it’s a waste of time and energy.

Peace, my friend.

Much thanks for being civil about this. Irishman points out that I said inconsistencies–yes, that’s correct, and changes nothing I’ve said. I’m against the use of any fictitious inconsistencies, and I see a lot of them come up from detractor’s. That’s not to say there are no real inconsistencies–there’s just a number of fictitious ones. Furthermore, in this case, as I’ve pointed out, there are enough problems just bringing all of the land animals to Adam to name in the first place (i.e., there’s already an absurdity).

Still, there was only one specific inconsistency I was bringing up–hence, one “alleged inconsistency” (hate quoting myself, but feel it’s required here). As Irishman no doubt discovered, the record’s pretty much indelible here, so you could just scroll up and look at it.

My point with you was that you were talking about some “they” of inconsistencies that are real. What they could you be talking about? There’s this particular alleged inconsistency, which is really an anachronistic view of the language and not an inconsistency, and the general idea of other fictitious inconsistencies. The latter is pretty much fictitious by definition, so it seems odd to me to defend false alleged inconsistencies (defending THAT there are inconsistencies is different, but there’s really nothing in what I’ve said so far that says the bible is consistent); the former was just addressed, but is only singular.

I’ve felt my comments were simply not being read, because the only reasonable way I could be saying the bible is always consistent would be if I were a biblical literalist; but in the same sentence where I point out that there are fictitious inconsistencies we don’t need to deal with, I pointed out that there’s enough problems with what the text actually says–something a literalist probably wouldn’t say.

I don’t think we should blindly accept Darwinism as a truth that can’t be open to critical analysis, either.

There isn’t any such thing in science as Darwin”ism,” any more than there’s Einstein”ism” or Newton”ism.” There are only facts and theories.

If by Darwin”ism” you mean the theory of evolution, it gets critically analyzed every day by scientists all over the world. That’s what scientistsdo. Nothing – and I do mean nothing – gets a free pass.

The fact of evolution is well-established. Darwin was hardly the first to notice that when engineers dug tunnels, canals, rock cuts for railroads, etc., the fossils changed radically depending on location and depth, and that living species had analogs – possibly ancestors – among the fossils. Beginning in the late 18th century, a number of scientists, including Darwin’s grandfather Erasmus, wrote about the phenomenon.

What Darwin did was propose a mechanism, based on decades of observation and study and drawing on the expertise of the best minds among his colleagues, for that phenomenon. So far it’s held up, because it fits the facts.

Darwin wasn’t the only one to come up with the idea, either. He beat Alfred Russel Wallace to publication by a matter of months, if I remember right.

Christian Burnham says:

OK anomalous4
I take that back.

Apology accepted, my friend.

Christians can be trusted sometimes to teach science- but not in a quasi religious setting and especially not in a church.

You’ll get no argument out of me on that one. Sunday school isn’t for science classes, any more than regular school is for religious education.

yy2bggggs says:

The evidence is that you’re speaking of “they”, but there’s no they in the discussion–there’s only an “it”.

Obviously we’re both talking across each other. If you’ll elaborate a bit, maybe we can hash this out amicably.

Ozprof says:

entirely without foundation and simply illustrates your own ignorance and bigotry.

Can you say “ad hominem“? (Actually it’s ad feminem in my case.)

If you’ve read my posts, you know something about my background. I hardly think I’m ignorant, if I may say so myself.

I’m going to stick my neck out here. What I haven’t said is that I spent a couple of my college years in the Fundamentalist camp, so I’ve known that from the inside as well. It was OK for a while, but I found there was no room for my questions. (At one point, a group leader said to me in so many words, “God doesn’t need thinkers!”) It wasn’t long before I started feeling as if a large and important part of me was being suffocated. At times it became a physical sensation. (I can feel it again as I type this.) Finally I fell into a depression severe enough that for the first and only time in my life, I considered suicide. Literally, I got out to save my own life.

Angry? Still squirming? Yes. Ignorant? Bigoted? Hardly. Been there, done that, got the scars. (OTOH, Fundamentalism seems to work very well for my brother. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.)

If you have a specific quibble, present it in a rational way. Tell me what you think is wrong with my analysis, and give me something solid to back up your reasoning. But don’t just tell me I’m ignorant and bigoted, or simply quote “the Bible says” or doctrine at me.

For my part, I’ll try to be less snarky. I hereby officially swear off the use of the term “FMC.” I don’t want to get into a fight. But I stand by everything I’ve written regarding history, language, interpretation, and what I know from experience about the range of “Christianities.”

JustAl says:

I’m not sure if Christian is saying that they “can’t coexist,” or that they “shouldn’t coexist,” or that they’re incompatible fields. And each one has different implications.

No argument there. All those implications are important. Maybe Christian can elaborate a bit. Christian?

Irishman says:

Bolding added. I think my post was misleading.

Seeing the two clips juxtaposed, I think maybe my post was misleading. Different “we.” Sorry, my bad for not making it clear which hat I was wearing at the moment. I still agree with you.

Sticks says:

Adding the word “had” clarrifies things better and shows there is not a chronological inconsistancy between the two accounts.

I did a bunch of digging and found a set of parallel translations of several ancient sources of the passage in question. I didn’t find any “had” constructs, but I did find an instance or two of “so” and “then” in place of the more common “and.” But now we’re getting into hairsplitting, which is really only interesting to weird birds like me….. OK, she said to herself, take a deep breath………..

Irishman says:

Sorry, but yy2bggggs is indecipherable to me.

“2 Y’s 2 B 4 G’s S.” “Too wise to be for Jesus.” =ROFL= That’s really ingenious – I like it in spite of myself!

Sorry, but you’re the one who said “fictitious inconsistencies”, not “a fictitious inconsistenccy”. You are not reading what you wrote.

> but it should be obvious that I’m not a Christian–look at my nick for Christ’s sake!

Sorry, but yy2bggggs is indecipherable to me.

> I also think that we “people of both faith and science” must come out and join the debate.

Bolding added. I think my post was misleading. At the time I was a believer. Currently I’m as atheist as PZ Myers. I just have a bit different perspective.

But you’ve had some good things to say in this thread.

anomalous4 said:
> I’ve also already addressed the “parts of the Bible” question. Everyone chooses and interprets. That doesn’t apply only to religion. Everyone interprets his or her philosophy and builds his or her own ethical/moral system based on experience, and just as in religion, adherents of every philosophy may focus on a particular aspect of that philosophy and choose to err on the side of rigidity or of tolerance.

I think the difference that Christian Burnham is stressing is that Christians claim the morality and “truth” comes from God, but then pick and choose the parts of the Bible to support that claim, rather than reading what the Bible says and basing their judgment of God on the Bible. It’s the whole non-falsifiable thing. “If it’s good, it must be true, but if it’s bad, then it’s human error or Satan’s misdirection or ineffebility.” Right. By definition, God doesn’t screw up, humans do. So all error is ours, and God is still perfect. Any evil done by God is a misunderstanding. Yeah, right – excuses, excuses.

Richard R said:
> I am a Christian who is a creationist but not a literalist, in so far as I don’t believe in the literal understanding of Genesis. I beleive in the truth that God created the universe, the world and us – in his own way and in his own time. Genesis relates that truth in a mythlogical genre.

And that’s an out a lot of people use – how much do you take as metaphor and allegory, and how much do you take as somehow the underlying truth?

My question for liberal believers: everyone else got it wrong somehow – the Muslims, the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Native Americans, the Aborigines, the Norse, the Babylonians and Sumerians, etc ad nauseum. Suppose for a moment that there is a creator, a god of some sort. What makes you think that the Hebrews got it any better than any of those other folks?

Sticks said:
>A better rendering of the would be

> “And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.”

> Adding the word “had” clarrifies things better and shows there is not a chronological inconsistancy between the two accounts. It might be an idea to look at more than one English translation to check this out though, but that is my take on the apparent anomolly.

Sorry, doesn’t work. The logical progression of that passage has God thinking about Adam being lonely. It then states God will make a “help meet”. The idea that he would parade the already existing animals past Adam is inconsistent with the statement that he is going to make a help meet for Adam. Also, the symbolic interpretation is that the animals were made to serve Man. That symbolism is falsified if the animals were made first and Adam second.

I’m fine taking both passages as poetic allegory. But relying on them as any sort of factual basis, as some sort of “basically accurate description”, is faulty.

yy2bggggs said:
>> anomolous4: “Oh, they’re real enough, all right. And they’re precisely the point.”

> You’re not reading what I wrote, and are talking to yourself. The evidence is that you’re speaking of “they”, but there’s no they in the discussion–there’s only an “it”. There is one and only one alleged inconsistency I am talking about, and it is NOT a real one. Don’t go off fighting windmills.

Sorry, but you’re the one who said “fictitious inconsisten[b]cies[/b]“, not “[i]a[/i] fictitious inconsistenc[i]cy[/i]“. [i]You[/i] not reading what you wrote.

> but it should be obvious that I’m not a Christian–look at my nick for Christ’s sake!

Sorry, but [b]yy2bggggs[/b] is indecipherable to me.

I’m not sure if Christian is saying that they “can’t coexist,” or that they “shouldn’t coexist,” or that they’re incompatible fields. And each one has different implications.

To address them in reverse order, the concept of “faith” runs against scientific process, which requires evidence and testability. Faith is a socio-philosophical concept, not a scientific one. While coexistence is possible, basically by operating in non-intersecting circles, neither one can accommodate the other within itself.

As for “shouldn’t coexist,” that’s a matter of opinion, as long as it recognizes the factors above. It may pay to be more specific when talking about such a scenario, such as defining where and when either will be taught, and making sure there are clear definitions of both. One of my favorite religious fallacies is the idea of showing where some facet of the bible has some kind of scientific basis, such as whether a supernova was visible at the time of jesus’ birth or where the Red Sea may have gone dry for a spell, but otherwise ignoring science when it makes geocentrism, or the flood, or genesis, a load of total bull hockey. That’s playing both sides of the fence – common, but dishonest.

“Can’t coexist”? Well, they are right now, though there’s a definite amount of friction. As noted, however, neither can incorporate the other, with the exception of science considering religion a facet of human behavior (the philosophical angle again). As history, however, it fails.

Within all this are the questions, “Is there a need for religion?” and “Why do people believe in the first place?” Many people, including you yourself as indicated above, decide on the side of the unprovable negative, where they cannot be shown that a deity does not exist or an afterlife is a nonsense concept. Others look at it from the provable side, and demand evidence. Again, a matter of opinion.