I like shooting down Bible contradictions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-11-2011, 09:57 PM
RE: I like shooting down Bible contradictions
(12-11-2011 08:42 PM)lucradis Wrote:  This will be short. I will not revisit this thread after this either.

You are not here for the reasons stated.

This thread is about contradictions in the Bible, is it not? Pretty sure I asked to stick to that subject.

Quote:You are an apologist.

Also you have little scientific understanding.

And you're judging me based on 3 posts I've made. How do you know your judgment is accurate? You don't know me, and you hardly know anything about me. It's not like I poured everything in my brain into 3 posts, so you can't say how much knowledge I do/don't have.

Quote:This makes all conversation absolutely pointless which is unfortunate because I actually enjoy having real discussions with theists who aren't playing pretend. One of our resident theists theo I enjoy conversing with usually an he is a tried and true creationist. He makes no qualms about it. He doesn't pretend that "it's all about context" because we'll we've all heard it.

O, I'm pretending now? If you think my explaination to the alleged contradiction is wrong, then how about you try discussing what's exactly wrong about it? (That goes for everyone, not just you lucradis.)

Quote:We've almost all read the bible and not just one of the versions because it's where most of us came from. Most of us have seen both sides. It's te mistake apologists make. Apologists think they know how we think and think they can work around it. But they have only actually seen the one side. They only half understand what we are thinking.

O rly? If you still think Ezekiel 18:20 and Exodus 20:5 is a contradiction, then please do explain.

Quote:Oh and light pollution.

Yeah, I thought of that, but how can you actually measure light pollution? And how would light pollution change over the course of an hour or so, assumming nothing in my apparent surroundings changed (light-wise)?

(I do realize he said he's not posting anymore in this topic, so if anyone wants to jump in and answer my questions, please feel free.)

(12-11-2011 09:02 PM)daemonowner Wrote:  To find all the flaws in the gospels, you need to read them horizontally as opposed to vertically. It's hard to find the contradictions and differences when you just read the gospels one by one. Instead, read them story by story.
For example: How many women went to Jesus' tomb and what were their names. What did they see when they got there, what did they do afterwards. The gospels all portray different stories. They don't agree on any of the details. That's why when people have tried to make them all into one gospel for simplicity it doesn't work, they contradict on the details.
bart Ehrman has made this point in a lecture he gave, which can probably be found on youtube.

That's fine in reading the gospels like that to observe differences. When I talk about taking a Bible verse out of context, I mean more like Luke 14:26 or Genesis 32:30. I'm not advocating that all Bible contradictions are taking verses out of context. Allthough, in the contradiction that was just brought up with Ezekiel 18:20 and Exodus 20:5, he didn't even fully quote both of the Bible verses (even going by the king james version).

As for the women that went to the tomb, I'll look into that one, thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2011, 10:25 PM (This post was last modified: 12-11-2011 11:42 PM by houseofcantor.)
RE: I like shooting down Bible contradictions
(12-11-2011 07:59 PM)megamaster125 Wrote:  
(12-11-2011 06:17 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  As an atheist, Genesis 2:4. It's all downhill from there. Wink

If you don't mind sharing, what is your problem with Genesis 2:4?
Somebody is a Christian operating under false pretenses... Tongue

Nah. I assumed you were atheist. Just saw your intro thread. "Sheep-shearing" refers to an activity preformed on ignorant Christians. We don't have any of them. I ain't got no problem with you. Wink

2:4 goes "this is an account of the heavens and the earth and their creation," or some such - I mean, I got a theological reference library on this unit, someone wanna pick nits. Wink

The (nice, juicy) problem is Adam, and "image of god," feel me? "Image of god" comes from creation of man on the sixth day - then there's 2:4, a "new" account - and Adam, created from dust (earth) and breath (spirit); but in no wise, "image."

This is one of the many considerations for the "document hypothesis." My (former) NIV was "certain" of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch; I'm equally certain a prophet does not work alone. Wink
(12-11-2011 09:02 PM)daemonowner Wrote:  To find all the flaws in the gospels, you need to read them horizontally as opposed to vertically. It's hard to find the contradictions and differences when you just read the gospels one by one. Instead, read them story by story.
For example: How many women went to Jesus' tomb and what were their names. What did they see when they got there, what did they do afterwards. The gospels all portray different stories. They don't agree on any of the details. That's why when people have tried to make them all into one gospel for simplicity it doesn't work, they contradict on the details.
bart Ehrman has made this point in a lecture he gave, which can probably be found on youtube.

Gospel. Tongue

Complete fabrication. NT "simple like Koran." NT all Paul. Go from 1 Thessalonians (the oldest) to Romans (the crowning glory of Paul's theology) to 11 Corinthians (conspiracy of church rearing its ugly head); that's what I'm saying about the NT. Wink

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2011, 01:48 AM
RE: I like shooting down Bible contradictions
(12-11-2011 07:59 PM)megamaster125 Wrote:  I'll just end by saying this. In order to truely prove creationism wrong, you must first disprove Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Of course, this would entail disproving God, which is something that can't really be done. That's all I want to say about that, perhaps another time we can discuss deeper into the topic.

The hypothesis of creationism... No wait it doesn’t even deserve to be called that. A proper hypothesis doesn’t assume more than it explains. Creationism tries to explain a complex problem by assuming something even more complex... an almighty, omnipotent god. The whole idea of creationism is just silly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2011, 07:34 AM (This post was last modified: 13-11-2011 07:41 AM by FSM_scot.)
RE: I like shooting down Bible contradictions
Quote: I go outside at night, some time after sunset. I look up and see a few stars, of varying brightness, but certainly a lot of the stars are missing from the sky (from my personal viewpoint).

10-20 minutes later, I look up and see a lot more stars in the sky, some still missing, but far more are visible now than it was earlier. It hasn't really gotten any darker out (imo) since it was dark to begin with (I don't really want to get into varying degrees of darkness, unless the solution to this lies within that). After about an hour or so later, I can see all the stars (well, at least I wouldn't be able to tell if more are coming into view or not). The one-way speed of light's perspective would say that the starlight traveled to the earth instantaneously (again, this is the creationist answer that I'm not sure about). If that were true, then why don't I see all of the stars in the night sky at once. instead of waiting for them to pop into my view? If you have an explaination for this, I'd love to hear it.
That is down to your eyes adjusting to the darkness. Next time before you go out cover one of your eyes so no light gets in wait a few minutes then go outside then uncover the eye. The uncovered eye should see more of the stars as it's adjusted to low light the other eye you will see far less. Try it if it doesn't work you will still see better than if you hadn't done it.
Quote:Also, if the earth has been here for millions and billions of years, and life has been evolving for 600+ million years, then how is it the earth still has a magnetic field, when the magnetic field should have been decayed long before even 1 millions years passed?
this link pretty much covers it http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/d...field.html

Quote:In order to truely prove creationism wrong, you must first disprove Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Of course, this would entail disproving God, which is something that can't really be done. That's all I want to say about that, perhaps another time we can discuss deeper into the topic.
The burden of proof lies with those making the claim. It's a creationists job to prove their account so far none of their so called "proof" has stood up to any kind of scrutiny.

Quote:Well, we can conclude that the light in Genesis 1:3 is not from the sun, moon, or stars, since those weren't created until the fourth day (genesis 1:14). Of course, God being an all-powerful God, it is possible that the light in Genesis 1:3 is from some sort of temporary light-source. If it is possible for God to create, then God can also take away. Of course, no person was there at Genesis 1:3 to see exactly what this light was. The most logical conclusion I can see is that the light in Genesis 1:3 is just a temporary light that God put in place, and then later took away after creating the sun, moon, and stars, since there would no longer been a need for the temporary light when the sun could now provide light to the earth.

Why would god make a light source only to take it away and make another light source? seems counter productive.
Why not just make the sun and stars To begin with? If it knew what it was doing why would it waste time on something that temporary before creating something to do the same job?

Also the bible says in Genesis 1:16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.

Why is it that the moon is called a great light when it only reflects light from the sun. When god was telling people how it created the universe wouldn't it have said how it reflects light rather than it gives light. Could it be that genesis is an entirely man made book rather than the word of a god? And if that's the case why take any of it seriously?

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like FSM_scot's post
13-11-2011, 07:48 AM
RE: I like shooting down Bible contradictions
Contradictions in the bible?
There are contradictions throughout the whole bloody christen movement!

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Karl's post
13-11-2011, 08:53 AM (This post was last modified: 13-11-2011 08:55 AM by megamaster125.)
RE: I like shooting down Bible contradictions
(13-11-2011 07:34 AM)FSM_scot Wrote:  That is down to your eyes adjusting to the darkness. Next time before you go out cover one of your eyes so no light gets in wait a few minutes then go outside then uncover the eye. The uncovered eye should see more of the stars as it's adjusted to low light the other eye you will see far less. Try it if it doesn't work you will still see better than if you hadn't done it.

Thanks. I'll give that a try sometime. I'm not outside at night looking at the stars all the time, just on rare occassions when I happen to be in an outside evironment at a family gathering or such and I look up.

Quote:Also, if the earth has been here for millions and billions of years, and life has been evolving for 600+ million years, then how is it the earth still has a magnetic field, when the magnetic field should have been decayed long before even 1 millions years passed?
this link pretty much covers it http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/d...field.html [/quote]

Well, I don't understand all the terminology, but from what I gathered it was saying the magnetic field wasn't always decaying, but fluctuating between periods of decay and periods of strengthening.

Quote:The burden of proof lies with those making the claim. It's a creationists job to prove their account so far none of their so called "proof" has stood up to any kind of scrutiny.

I respectfully disagree. The evidnece for creationism makes logical sense from my perspective, so for now I'm going to stick with it. Again, I don't really want to get into this debate, at least not in this topic at this time. So for now, let's just agree to disagree.

Quote:Why would god make a light source only to take it away and make another light source? seems counter productive.
Why not just make the sun and stars To begin with? If it knew what it was doing why would it waste time on something that temporary before creating something to do the same job?

Well, that's really just a question only God can answer. I don't know what God was thinking or why God did what He did. (Yeah, I know. I just played the backdoor escape card of "God has His reasons." But in all fairness would you rather me be honest and say I don't know or make up some lie that I can't really support?)

Quote:Also the bible says in Genesis 1:16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.

Why is it that the moon is called a great light when it only reflects light from the sun. When god was telling people how it created the universe wouldn't it have said how it reflects light rather than it gives light. Could it be that genesis is an entirely man made book rather than the word of a god? And if that's the case why take any of it seriously?

I think you're a bit mistaken. the greater light governs the DAY. That is clearly referring to the sun. The lesser light governs the night, that would be the moon and stars.

And I'm not sure where you're getting that the Bible states the moon gives light as opposed to reflecting light from the sun. After reading genesis 1:14-19 again, it says the lesser light (the moon) governs the night. The Bible isn't claiming that the moon doesn't reflect the suns light. On the flipside, the Bible doesn't directly state that the moon is reflecting the sun's light. The Bible isn't meant to have every single detail of every single thing. The Bible is just meant to give a broad picture overview.

(13-11-2011 07:48 AM)Karl Wrote:  Contradictions in the bible?
There are contradictions throughout the whole bloody christen movement!

Christians that don't always follow what the Bible says don't negate the Bible. Yes, I realize there's Christians out there that murder, do drugs, or whatever. Christians aren't perfect people, no one is. I don't think it would be fair to use an example of a Christian that committed a sin to say that the whole Bible and Christianity movement are wrong. I'm sure you wouldn't want me classifying you with the atheist on youtube that shoved a banana up his butt after another atheist said on tv that bananas fit up your butt. Just because one atheist did that doesn't mean I think all of you do that same practice. Similarly, not all Christians are the same. We're not perfect either, and I think there's a common misconception that Christians are or should be perfect. The reality is, Christians still sin and make mistakes just like everyone else. What's important is how we deal with such things.
Btw, I'd like to bring the topic back to Ezekiel 18:20 and Exodus 20:5. I gave an explaination about how they're not contradictions, and no one has really disputed that. Does anyone have a dispute or problem with my explaination? If there's nothing else to be said, I'll just add the current explaination to my website and classify this as not a contradiction.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2011, 09:41 AM
RE: I like shooting down Bible contradictions
Quote:I respectfully disagree. The evidnece for creationism makes logical sense from my perspective, so for now I'm going to stick with it. Again, I don't really want to get into this debate, at least not in this topic at this time. So for now, let's just agree to disagree.
Fair enough.

Quote:I think you're a bit mistaken. the greater light governs the DAY. That is clearly referring to the sun. The lesser light governs the night, that would be the moon and stars.

And I'm not sure where you're getting that the Bible states the moon gives light as opposed to reflecting light from the sun. After reading genesis 1:14-19 again, it says the lesser light (the moon) governs the night. The Bible isn't claiming that the moon doesn't reflect the suns light. On the flipside, the Bible doesn't directly state that the moon is reflecting the sun's light. The Bible isn't meant to have every single detail of every single thing. The Bible is just meant to give a broad picture overview.

I was refering to "God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." Which id say could be interpreted either way, but thats just my opinion.

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2011, 10:40 AM
RE: I like shooting down Bible contradictions
(13-11-2011 08:53 AM)megamaster125 Wrote:  
(13-11-2011 07:48 AM)Karl Wrote:  Contradictions in the bible?
There are contradictions throughout the whole bloody christen movement!

Christians that don't always follow what the Bible says don't negate the Bible. Yes, I realize there's Christians out there that murder, do drugs, or whatever. Christians aren't perfect people, no one is. I don't think it would be fair to use an example of a Christian that committed a sin to say that the whole Bible and Christianity movement are wrong. I'm sure you wouldn't want me classifying you with the atheist on youtube that shoved a banana up his butt after another atheist said on tv that bananas fit up your butt. Just because one atheist did that doesn't mean I think all of you do that same practice. Similarly, not all Christians are the same. We're not perfect either, and I think there's a common misconception that Christians are or should be perfect. The reality is, Christians still sin and make mistakes just like everyone else. What's important is how we deal with such things.
Btw, I'd like to bring the topic back to Ezekiel 18:20 and Exodus 20:5. I gave an explaination about how they're not contradictions, and no one has really disputed that. Does anyone have a dispute or problem with my explaination? If there's nothing else to be said, I'll just add the current explaination to my website and classify this as not a contradiction.

I wasn’t pointing at an individual and saying “that bloke said he’s a Christian and he stole so the whole lot should be jailed”
I am saying that as an entity in itself the Christian movement throughout history has preached love kindness and understanding and then done the total opposite.
Not that the other religions are any better.
How many deaths does it take to spread the message of love and understanding?

Christians are just human, like those who are Jewish, Muslim or called Billy, and to err is human.
But to pick up the bible and look for contradictions isn’t hard and there is little point.
It’s like finding a typo in DIY instructions for a nuclear bomb.
Good spotting, but there is a bigger issue here.

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Karl's post
13-11-2011, 12:36 PM (This post was last modified: 13-11-2011 12:43 PM by Azaraith.)
RE: I like shooting down Bible contradictions
(12-11-2011 07:59 PM)megamaster125 Wrote:  
(12-11-2011 05:49 PM)Azaraith Wrote:  lol. Why not pick 5 that you think you've got the best argument for and go from there? The list is a good start, the only explanations/rationalizations I've seen for 99% of them are just "apologist acrobatics" that take the two ends and make up/throw together things to try and make them seem less illogical...

Well, now that you mention it, I am working on a website that goes through alleged contradictions. What I've found thus far is that most contradictions can be solved by simply reading the Bible and applying a bit of common sense. Most of the contradictions I see stem from taking Bible verses out of context, and when put back into context, there really is no contradiction. It would be like me pulling 2 sentences from two different places in a science textbook and placing them side-by-side, making it look like there's a contradiction.

Funny, reading the Bible and using common sense is what made me an atheist. "God glasses" are needed if you read every word of it and still think He a) exists and b) is loving. But that's another topic altogether.

(12-11-2011 07:59 PM)megamaster125 Wrote:  In order for there to actually be a contradiction, there should be no way of explaining my way out of it. And I'm not going to try and use phrases like "why can't it be both?" because that isn't even good enough for me. Why would I expect it to be good enough for you. Instead of just stopping with saying it could be both, I aim to go a step further and show how it can be both.

Only if the explanations are 100% factual, relevant and logical. 99.9% of them aren't.

(12-11-2011 07:59 PM)megamaster125 Wrote:  
Quote:Ezekiel 18:20: The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.
The penalty of sin is placed upon only the sinner, not the offspring.

Exodus 20:5: I the lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.

I've already laid out the mat, let's see the acrobatics.

Well, I'm going to follow the format of my website (so I can copy/paste it there later when I make a page for this). I always start by quoting the Bible verses in question, from my personal NIV Bible. I always find it a bit mischeiveous when atheists quote Bible verses at me. Wink

For this one in particular, I can see the contradiction starting to fall apart just by looking at the verses.

The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
Ezekiel 18:20

You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Exodus 20:5

The claim: Exodus says that the sin of the previous generation will get passed down to the children, who will also get punished for it. Ezekiel says that the son of the father who sins will not be punished for their father's sins.

From reading the whole chapter, it seems that Ezekiel is turning back from the statement that sons should suffer the guilt of their fathers, I'll give you that. It isn't just a proverb though, but part of the most important laws in Jewish culture. Are we now stating that the ten commandments were altered or partially nullified in later texts?

(12-11-2011 07:59 PM)megamaster125 Wrote:  The explaination: The entire chapter of Ezekiel 18 is about a proverb that will no longer be getting passed down. This proverb is "the fathers eat sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge," which is found in verse 2. This proverb is saying that the sins of the father are passed down to his children. The context of Ezekiel 18:2 is God asking why this proverb has been getting passed down.

The whole purpose of Ezekiel 18 is to say that the soul that sins in the one who will die (verse 20). This is actually consistent with what Exodus 20:5 is saying. Exodus 20:5 says, "punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me." This statement is saying that the children of the third and fourth generation also hate God. In other words, the children are sharing in the same sin. For instance, the father is worshiping a false idol (or whatever sin). The third and fourth generation is also worshiping this false idol (or whatever sin). In this case, since the third and fourth generation is practicing this sin, they will be punished because they were practicing it, not because their fathers were.

But why the attention to the sons? Wouldn't just saying "those who hate God will suffer" suffice? If the sons do hate God, they would violate that command. If they don't, they don't. Adding that their fathers hated God doesn't seem to factor into the equation.

(12-11-2011 07:59 PM)megamaster125 Wrote:  Exodus 20:5 goes on to say, "showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments," and this is consistent with Ezekiel 18:20. There is no contradiction.


(12-11-2011 06:17 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  As an atheist, Genesis 2:4. It's all downhill from there. Wink

If you don't mind sharing, what is your problem with Genesis 2:4?


(12-11-2011 07:13 PM)Jakel Wrote:  I'll bite too! I'll just start from the very beginning of the list on the site. You only have to read the first page of the bible to know it's utter bullshit:

Genesis 1:16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.

The stars gave light to the earth immediately, although the closest star, Alpha Centauri, is 4.3 light years away. So the very first star light would have taken 4.3 years to reach earth. The light we see from the Andromeda Galaxy takes 2.2 million years to reach earth, which also debunks the argument that the earth is only 6,000-10,000 years old.

How we can see distant starlight is a question that I still have myself tbh. The creationist explaination is about the "one-way speed of light." I'm not going to get into that here, and I'm not sure if I fully agree with it, here's why though. I go outside at night, some time after sunset. I look up and see a few stars, of varying brightness, but certainly a lot of the stars are missing from the sky (from my personal viewpoint).

10-20 minutes later, I look up and see a lot more stars in the sky, some still missing, but far more are visible now than it was earlier. It hasn't really gotten any darker out (imo) since it was dark to begin with (I don't really want to get into varying degrees of darkness, unless the solution to this lies within that). After about an hour or so later, I can see all the stars (well, at least I wouldn't be able to tell if more are coming into view or not). The one-way speed of light's perspective would say that the starlight traveled to the earth instantaneously (again, this is the creationist answer that I'm not sure about). If that were true, then why don't I see all of the stars in the night sky at once. instead of waiting for them to pop into my view? If you have an explaination for this, I'd love to hear it.

Also, if the earth has been here for millions and billions of years, and life has been evolving for 600+ million years, then how is it the earth still has a magnetic field, when the magnetic field should have been decayed long before even 1 millions years passed?

The magnetic field is maintained/created by processes within the earth itself. It's not a remnant of the earth's formation. http://www.physics.org/article-questions.asp?id=64



(12-11-2011 07:59 PM)megamaster125 Wrote:  Anyways, this topic isn't really about the Bible vs. science, or creationism vs. ...non-creationism(???). Aside from the above, I don't really wish to discuss those topic here, perhaps another time. I'll just end by saying this. In order to truely prove creationism wrong, you must first disprove Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Of course, this would entail disproving God, which is something that can't really be done. That's all I want to say about that, perhaps another time we can discuss deeper into the topic.


Quote:Actually you only need to read 3 verses of the bible to know it's bullshit:

Genesis 1:3
And God said, Let there be light: And there was light.

But no sun until 3 days later?... And don't give me the God-was-a-lihgt-until-he-made-the-sun-bullshit...pleaseSad

Well, we can conclude that the light in Genesis 1:3 is not from the sun, moon, or stars, since those weren't created until the fourth day (genesis 1:14). Of course, God being an all-powerful God, it is possible that the light in Genesis 1:3 is from some sort of temporary light-source. If it is possible for God to create, then God can also take away. Of course, no person was there at Genesis 1:3 to see exactly what this light was. The most logical conclusion I can see is that the light in Genesis 1:3 is just a temporary light that God put in place, and then later took away after creating the sun, moon, and stars, since there would no longer been a need for the temporary light when the sun could now provide light to the earth.

As others have stated, the temporary light source explanation makes no sense. It'd be like me going out to build a house and putting a huge tent up while I did the landscaping, then taking the tent down and building the house. Why not start by creating the finished light source? Especially since God can apparently just will it into existence, it's not going to take him forever to do it.

Better without God, and happier too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2011, 01:30 PM
RE: I like shooting down Bible contradictions
(13-11-2011 12:36 PM)Azaraith Wrote:  Only if the explanations are 100% factual, relevant and logical. 99.9% of them aren't.

Well, there are some instances where all the specific details are not given by the Bible, so it's hard to determine what exactly happened and the order of it happening, like the women and the empty tomb (which I'll address at a later time, I'm a bit busy right now to go into all of that).

Quote:
(12-11-2011 07:59 PM)megamaster125 Wrote:  Well, I'm going to follow the format of my website (so I can copy/paste it there later when I make a page for this). I always start by quoting the Bible verses in question, from my personal NIV Bible. I always find it a bit mischeiveous when atheists quote Bible verses at me. Wink

For this one in particular, I can see the contradiction starting to fall apart just by looking at the verses.

The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
Ezekiel 18:20

You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Exodus 20:5

The claim: Exodus says that the sin of the previous generation will get passed down to the children, who will also get punished for it. Ezekiel says that the son of the father who sins will not be punished for their father's sins.

From reading the whole chapter, it seems that Ezekiel is turning back from the statement that sons should suffer the guilt of their fathers, I'll give you that. It isn't just a proverb though, but part of the most important laws in Jewish culture. Are we now stating that the ten commandments were altered or partially nullified in later texts?

I wouldn't say the 10 commandments were altered, more like misinterpreted. Given my explaination, I showed how Exodus 20:5 is consistent and not contradictory to Ezekiel 18:20 (or at least, that's what I'm trying to show). And as Ezekiel 18 is saying, the idea that a father's sins get passed down to his children is a false idea that was passed down through the years.

Quote:
(12-11-2011 07:59 PM)megamaster125 Wrote:  The explaination: The entire chapter of Ezekiel 18 is about a proverb that will no longer be getting passed down. This proverb is "the fathers eat sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge," which is found in verse 2. This proverb is saying that the sins of the father are passed down to his children. The context of Ezekiel 18:2 is God asking why this proverb has been getting passed down.

The whole purpose of Ezekiel 18 is to say that the soul that sins in the one who will die (verse 20). This is actually consistent with what Exodus 20:5 is saying. Exodus 20:5 says, "punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me." This statement is saying that the children of the third and fourth generation also hate God. In other words, the children are sharing in the same sin. For instance, the father is worshiping a false idol (or whatever sin). The third and fourth generation is also worshiping this false idol (or whatever sin). In this case, since the third and fourth generation is practicing this sin, they will be punished because they were practicing it, not because their fathers were.

But why the attention to the sons? Wouldn't just saying "those who hate God will suffer" suffice? If the sons do hate God, they would violate that command. If they don't, they don't. Adding that their fathers hated God doesn't seem to factor into the equation.

Well, asking why the Bible was written or worded like that doesn't negate my explaination. But to answer your question, I don't know why it was written like that, that's just how it is. About Exodus 20:5 specifically, verse 4 talks about idol worshiping. I think the implications of bringing up fathers and sons and generations here is to show that if a father worships a false idol, then their son is likely to worship that same false idol. We can even observe this in today's society. I'm sure we would all agree that if you were born into a household that following Hinduism, you would be more likely to follow Hinduism than say Islam. Of course, it is possible for the sons to deviate from their father's traditions, and leave Hinduism in favor of something else. Verse 5 ends by saying that God will show love to generations who follow His commands (in other words, those that aren't worshiping false idols).

Quote:As others have stated, the temporary light source explanation makes no sense. It'd be like me going out to build a house and putting a huge tent up while I did the landscaping, then taking the tent down and building the house. Why not start by creating the finished light source? Especially since God can apparently just will it into existence, it's not going to take him forever to do it.

You ask a valid question, but since I'm not God I can't really give you a good answer for that. Sorry. All I can say is that God's ways are not like our own. We don't have to understand everything about God in order to believe in him. I don't understand everything about how my cell phone works, how each of the little parts work together, etc. But I do trust that my cell phone works.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: