Conflicting statements in the bible

[Statler Waldorf]

And if I were to go back to 400 b.c. and set off a bunch of fireworks...That would be percieved as supernatural, and since large groups of people thought that it was...it must be?

How do you know it’d be perceived as supernatural? Are you suggesting that people traveled back in time to Biblical times and used modern technology to perform miracles?

Justified how? Because I accept that the beans I just purchased are magic beans, i'm justified in believing they are in fact magic beans because the guy that sold him to me seemed to be on the up-and-up, nevermind not having any reason to believe that such beans existed anywhere...ever?

You’re just proving my point, Ryantology said you merely only have to accept the source of the information and you are therefore justified in that belief, I was reducing that to absurdity.

Well..That all depends on what attributes you claim your has. Please list any possible attributes that such a being would require, and i'd be happy to explain why it's not consistant with what we know about the universe. (example: Creation Ex Niliho, Omniscient, Omnipotent...)

I do not have to list any possible attributes, scripture is quite clear about what attributes God possesses and I do not see how any of them are inconsistent with the Universe.

Indeed, step on up to the plate and lets discuss the errors with God(s) with respect to scientific knowledge.

Is our scientific knowledge infallible? Yes or no.

Worthless is an opinion, but in a minute you can decide...

Opinions do not prove anything, but I am sure you knew that.

Lie isn't quite the right word. Unfalsifiable, yes. We'll address the worth of those types of claims shortly...

Ryantology asserted they’re lies, not me.

1)All Toyota Cars are created at various Toyota assembley plants around the world. Toyotas can be identified by several numbers in various places within the assembley of the car.(evidence supports this claim, as every Toyota has identification numbers that can be traced back to any one of the several plants around the world, the results are consistant and there has never been a Toyota that could not be linked to a assembley plant using the numbers.)

You’ve examined all Toyota cars? That’s a lot of cars.

3) My car was created at a Toyota assembley plant (logically follows)

Sure, but how do you know all Toyota cars that have this sticker indeed were created at a plant? Are you taking the word of Toyota on that one?

Both of the first two premises are true and backed by verifiable evidence with confirmed qualifying criteria, and the conclusion logically follows.

I am not sure how you know that all Toyota cars indeed have this sticker, and that all Toyota cars that have this sticker indeed got this sticker from the plant. It seems to me you’re merely taking Toyota’s word on this one.

There is no "your logic". There is only logical and illogical. If you refuse to abide by the rules of logic when weighing claims, the conclusions you derrive are illogical. If the conclusions happen to be correct you should hardly be proud of the means of such a conclusion as it was luck at best.

Again, talk to Ryantology on that one, I was directly quoting his terminology. Is logic Universal and immutable?

Nope! But, if you wish to make an inductive inference based on rational intuition, the inference made cannot be irrational or unfounded. Looking at a car and inferring it was made, comes from knowledge of experience. There is no experienced knowledge of a God anywhere, and so there is no reason to simply plug it in because you want it to be true.

Is there experienced knowledge that life naturally arises from non-life? What about experienced knowledge that non-rational events can give rise to rational minds? What about experienced knowledge that all life on Earth comes from a single common ancestor? Please follow your own rules.

---

Again...If I found some old artifacts in the ground during an excavation, say they were eating utensils (my first valid inductive inference) carved (second valid inductive inference) from wood. If I was going to begin to explain where they could have possibly came from, I would not need evidence to assert as a starting point that they were at the very least made by probably man. This would be a valid inductive inference, and an excellent starting point to my hypothesis of EXACTLY where they came from because of my knowledge of what sorts of things are common to creations of man. But all of this is only valid because of knowledge.

---

How do you know they are eating utensils? How do you know they are not merely eroded pieces of wood? Simply calling something a valid inference does not make it so.

The universe we have without a God is precisely the universe we could expect to not have a God.

How do you know what a Godless universe should look like?

There is no evidence of such things, and any attempt to logically assert such a capable being, cannot be validated inductively or deductively.

How do you know you can trust your ability to reason inductively and deductively?

A hypothesis must be falsifiable to identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, it cannot be meaningfully tested or rationally accepted.

How can you falsify the hypothesis that “all meaningful hypotheses must be falsifiable”? Or is that claim itself not meaningful?

an interesting qualifier open to interpretation.

It’s a valid qualifier. Can you give me an example of someone experiencing life arising from non-life in Nature?

Please show this proof you speak of...

The existence of websites that deal with reconciling Biblical contradictions? Google them.

---

The beleif that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light is an assumption that drives our sciences. But this assumption is not blind. It stands very firmly on years of sophisticated testing and consistant unrelenting results. It continues to be challenged, and the more it is challenged, the more it is confirmed. If you are attempting to assert God as a hypothesis for how the universe came into existance, you do this by a series of connecting inferences to an unvalidated entity and the first rule of supporting the God hypothesis is-NEVER CHALLENGE IT. The second rule of the God hypothesis is-IF CHALLENGED, CONFORM IT TO FIT. There is no reason to attribute anything to a God because there is no evidence that God even exists!

---

How is any of this relevant to websites dealing with alleged Bible contradictions?

God is not something you reason to, God is something you reason from.

---

Well, lets look at another famous "contradiction". (not really a contradiction per se but certainly unexplainable within the context of genesis.)

God creates adam and eve, they pork and have 2 sons. The sons are then sent off to far-away lands to "be fruitful and multiply".

Who, exactly did they multiply with?

This is not a contradiction in that one part of the bible says this and another part says that. It is a logical contradiction in that, according to the bible, there were only 4 people on earth at the time yet the sons were sent off and married to....who?

---

Genesis 5:4 says Adam and Eve had other children (both sons and daughters), and no that would not have led to any birth defects and no that was not a sin until later.

---

First of all you should actually read and understand what you've read before crying contradiction.

Sorry - but to claim that there are NO contradictions in the bible is just as MUCH a LIE as to claim some are - when there are explanations.

Now - there are a number of Major Contradictions of the bible- that cannot be explained away -

Among them - the two blood lines of the christ - in Matthew and Luke - BOTH cannot be true.(ANd worse - neither are true if you believe the christ is the son of god) But - it requires that we understand how the people of that time understood procreation. At that time - the bloodline ONLY went through MALES - father to son - because it was believed that the Father supplied the SEED of the male son - and the mother was only the "dirt" that the seed was planted in - and had no direct BLOOD relation to her son. This was to recognize that a babies blood supply is separate and can even be different type - than the mother.

Problem #1

The genealogy of Matthew descends through a CURSED line -Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) and his father Jehoiakim were both cursed by God himself, who said that neither of these men would have any descendent on the throne of David. - so this line CONTRADICTS the curse from the Old Testament. (Jeremiah 22)

Problem #2

Both lines end in JOSEPH - who we KNOW by the story had NO blood relation to the christ at all. (The bible specifically states that they had NO marital relations before the birth of the christ) Even if you claim that one of them is really the blood line of MARY - the Jews did not consider a woman to be in the bloodline. (And of course - since MARY is not mentioned - that is another addition theists like to add)

Problem #3

Even if the blood line of Luke - is the blood line of MARY - then Jesus would have descended through Nathan, not Solomon, making the prophecies in 2 Samuel 7:12-16 and 1 Chronicles 22:10 false.

Problem #4

If, using the genealogy in Luke, Jesus's claim to descent from David, of the tribe of Judah, is through Mary rather than Joseph then how can it be that Mary's cousin, Elizabeth, was descended from the house of Aaron, of the tribe of Levi (Luke 1:5)?

Problem #5

However - the biggest problem is that the christ is claimed to be the son of the god - and has NO bloodline connection to any male human.

There are many others

Why does the christ misquote the Old Testament - when it is supposed to be "his" word (One god supposedly)? 22 Matthew 4:10 versus Deuteronomy 6:13; Matthew 11:10 versus Malachi 3:1; Matthew 21:16 versus Psalm 8:2; Luke 4:17-21 versus Isaiah 61:1-2.

Why are there clear conflicts in the bible stories (Especially genesis) - with reality?

How about the Luke and Matthew stories of the christ supposedly in the desert - and the devil took him to a HIGH place where he could see ALL the kingdoms of the world. As we know - and the christ would have to know - that is NOT possible. In fact - there is no such place on earth from where you could see all the kingdoms mentioned in the bible before that.

And the problem with those two stories is - where did Luke and Matthew get the story from - there were only two supposedly there.- the christ and the devil. Both of them would have known that there was NO such place.
IF the story came from the christ - why did he LIE about it. IF the story came from the devil - then we question the source of the bible as being the word of god.

---

More elephant hurling I see, which one of these do you believe is the best example of a contradiction? Please let me know and I will address it for you.

Why didn’t anyone address my reconciling of Genesis 1 and 2?