Contradictions in the Bible (nardt) info graphic

pmills

pmills

Active member
(not another religious debate thread)

STOP. Think for a moment about how easily a controversial topic can get sidetracked. Congratulations, you can ruin a thread with 1 dumb comment/meme/personal attack. Please don't.

thank you.

Saw this on Fast company, i think the conversation piece is if this doesn't shake your faith, would anything?

http://www.fastcompany.com/1701846/infographic-of-the-day-what-the-bible-got-wrong

BibleContradictions_lede.jpg


(large graphic)

http://www.project-reason.org/bibleContra_big.pdf
 
"So to anyone who thinks the Bible’s the last word on anything, remember this: It isn’t even the last word on itself."

OHHH SHII--
 
I'm sure there are plenty of red lines that the understanding of the context will be debated, and hence the particular contradiction is debatable.

However, to the point of the counter-graphic; isn't it assumed it should all be interconnected and self affirming in the first place?
 
which is what you just did.i find this extremely interesting though. visual representations are often easier to understand and make things easier to grasp. this chart is very well done, although i am going to play devils advocate and say that some of these verses may have been taken out of context or mis-interpreted in order to make a clearer point. im not religious in any way btw
 
so the question becomes, at how many contradictions do you decide to question the validity of the source? If there were half as many red lines would it have less of an impact...

 
Very interesting.
I'm catholic, and have seen a truckload of contradictions in the bible long before this, but it doesn't really shake my faith. I just kind of accept it. I believe in God. But I also believe in logic. Kudos to you, good sir!

 
I don't think you even have to go as far as anyone belives has really done more to go do look more like in order to find an issue with the bible.

Surely the main problem is based around the concept of a perfect being, who is jealous and needs to be worshiped, who then impregnates a woman with himself so he can be born and save humanity from the sins that he created himself, but he has to die first, and then he can get resurrected and go up to heaven to chill with himself.

brool cory sto.
 
Well they teach you either believe the bible as a whole or none at all.

But then again you could be saying that you believe in god, even though you think the bible is bullshit. No guarantee he wrote or approved the message in the book.
 
Religion is weird.
I think Buddhism has it right.
Building Churches and Cathedrals for the sole purpose of worshiping a being that we see as perfect is stupid. While sometimes aesthetically pleasing, its a waste of money. If God really is loving, etc. he'd be cool if we just said thanks from time to time. No matter where we were at.
More to the point, the problem with religion is that we kill each other over it to see which of our religions is the most peaceful.
 
On the other hand, the amount of time in between the actual happenings and their translations into text could also for the writers to generate connections that might not necessarily have existed, and would explain some apparent consistency.

It's not only that there was a great deal of time spent writing the books, but that there was a significant amount of editorial debate about what to include and what to not include, as well as numerous translations between the original and the english KJV.

 
the bible disagrees with itself on much larger issues than the color of robes or the name of someone's father. I've argued this in the past (mostly with religion teachers) and it always comes down to "parts of the bible are meant to be taken literally and others are meant to be taken figuratively" and then if you argue that further then it comes down to "you just need to have faith"
 
not really. The foundation of the catholic faith, in contrast to most protestant faiths is not only the bible but also church tradition, which is why so much of what we believe is not from the bible. it is generally accepted that it is foolish to take every word in the bible as absolute fact with out looking at hte context of it
 
Yes because logic would dictate that you make decisions based on factual evidence. You believe in God merely on the basis of faith which is illogical, thus you aren't logical.
 
I just feel like the church chose what books went into the bible and then they choose what is meant to be taken literally and what is meant to be figurative? and then the book is basically used as an infallible source?

 
I think you just hit what I was about to say on the nose.
I believe in God. But he/she/it isn't perfect.
That and I don't think that if god were to approve of the bible it would be as a means of worship. It would be more of a "How to live a good life for dummies" kind of thing.
Although, what is good? Aside from skiing of course.

 
in the end though, doesn't it come down to you having to choose which passages you think make sense to you, and which ones really are good standards to live by and which ones to reject?

It seems like this process means the bible isn't necessary to know what's right and wrong. You will spot contradictions or inconsistencies in moral teachings that you decide you don't have to follow based on something intuitive rather than coming across a situation and then looking to the bible for guidance.

 
Can you define God please? Its pointless having a discussion about God if everyones definition of it is completely different.
 
thats the whole idea. churches and cathedrals are built out of our own respect and desire to do things for god, not because he expects us to.

and as for the picture in the OP, it would be impossible for the bible, a book written over hundreds of years by dozens of different people, to not contradict itself.

i think that the graphic shows a very very small percent of the total verses of the bible. obviously there are some contradictions but as a whole, it seems like the book portrays a message that is more broad, in countless ways.

30% of the world is supposed to be "christian", so theres gotta be something to it. its the largest religion in the world, and no simple computer graphic can displace the meaning of what is. inarguably, its the most important piece of text ever put on this planet.
 
inb4 The Bible says Slavery is OK

Exodus 21:16

Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.

Project Reason is one of the most poorly researched attempts to defile Holy Scripture I have ever come across.

In fact, I'll say this about arguing about the Bible in general. It is one of the starkest examples of people who refuse to educate themselves about the others' viewpoint.

You say that belief in God requires an infinite regression of perfect beings.

I say that belief in spontaneous generation requires an infinite regression of quantized energies which allow you to arrive at a suitably believable level of original, uncreated energy, which by the way, is zero.

Christians have no desire to become educated about the science behind belief in an uncreated universe.

Non-Christians have no desire to become educated about context and wholeness of scripture.

Nobody reads anything besides NSG and anything less than 140 characters anyway.

All day, both sides of the debate sling the exact same mud all day long. I, as a Christian, am insulted that you would bother to post something from Project Reason without bothering to do a basic amount of research about Sam Harris's "Findings." Because they are clearly someone with NO scriptural education whatsoever reading into scripture his own biases and agendas.
 
if you are trying to troll in this thread, stop. OP specifically made a little note at the top and if you should respect that.

if you are serious about that, you officially have the largest misinterpretation of the bible out of anyone. ever.

im not even going to start because i think youre just shit disturbing and dont want to feed any trolls.
 
i understand what youre saying for most of your post, but disagree with this section. this only applies to the stubborn, more radical people of each group.
 
The bible was written at different times to different people.If you don't understand this it will seem that it does contradict itself. Before Adam and Eve fell from grace the only rule they had was to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. That Bible teaching obviously no longer applies to our lives literally although lessons can still be learned from it.
 
Fair point.

I think we are talking about 2 different levels of "education." Most people get a fundamental level of education to allow them to debate at least semi-intelligently on the subject. However, NOBODY and I mean NOBODY seeks to genuinely understand the nuances.

When is the last time you caught a pastor in a quantum mechanics class, or the converse, an evolutionary biologist or physicist in a systematic theology class?

Doesn't happen.
 
Everybody is forgetting that the Bible is a collaboration of writings all CHOSEN by the Church to be included in the book. Therefore, any contradictions should be traced to the people who regulate what goes into the Bible. As many writings related to the Christian faith are left out and are locked up in archives, that GASP noone but the pope can see.

I'm catholic as well but i'm not a fan of the Church(i'm referring to the governing body) since they pretty much construct and alter the Bible to perpetuate the religion.

 
OP,

I'm curious. Before you posted this graphic, which by the way, you obtained from a Business-Based blog (not sure how that works but OK), did you research Project Reason's advisory boards?

If they are seeking to be so reasonable and get to the bottom of this God created the universe thing? Why are they seeking to make judgments and articles about religious texts without a single member of their advisory board having ANY religious education at all?

Their credentials are laughable/ I have to listen to somebody who is being advised by the writer of The Simpsons explaining to me a belief that I have been lectured and educated about for the better part of 23 years?

Give me a break.
 
So I'm curious. If you are going to make that statement, why not back it up in an educated manner instead of reiterating the same arguments we've seen here a million times. What writings would you consider to be worthy of inclusion that aren't?

Make intelligent and well researched arguments. Arguments from historical validity, arguments from time of first publication relative to Jesus' death, specific names and links to texts.

Or is that just an argument you've heard a million times before?
 
I'm not going to jump into the religious debate but don't be ignorant. There are people that are VERY educated on both sides. I've seen priests that studied evolutionary biology. Ignorant.
 
If you'd be willing to provide a name of someone who is studying the latest in "scientific" theory while simultaneously having a background in theology and/or the converse, I'd be happy to withdraw that statement.

I'd be particularly interested in readying what a published author on the combination of subjects has to say.

And the fact of the matter is, none of those people have been put forth in this thread as factual. If you bother to examine the board of advisers for Project Reason, it is a joke. They are about the least qualified people on the face of the planet to be making statements about the Bible.

Very qualified to make statements about the secular origins of the universe, don't get me wrong. But from what is available on their website, none of them appear to have theological education coming close to their secular education.
 
People should not forget the bible, but definatley should they stop talking about it, or questioning it or wtv. It was made fucking gazillions of years ago, of course nothing is certain, so of course we have plenty of questions, so of course they have no definit answer. And this happens, over and over again. - I know i suck at writing my thoughts
 
nobody "knows" whether or not there is a god. its a belief, whether you believe there is or isnt a god.

you need to look at it from a less... stubborn (for lack of a better word), a less stubborn point of view. this thread has been a good discussion so far and you need to stop trying to mess it up. go troll some other thread that isnt going anywhere.
 
I just enjoy conversations with that Zac dude, hes the only person who actually believes this crap in here anyways so its not like im going to derail anything.

Granted you can't know that God does or doesn't exist, however, given the amount of evidence against the existence of the Judeo-christian God and the complete lack of any evidence for his existence, one might as well assume he does not exist.

Just as it is perfectly acceptable to say that Santa Claus doesn't exist, so too is it to say the same about god.

Anyways, thats why i find these threads rather irritating. If you're going to discuss the bible, the only merit worth mentioning are the nice images/metaphors. Giving it any sort of credit for being remotely factual or for having any use in proving the existence of a god is quite silly in my opinion.
 
okay thats cool and i see where youre coming from, although i respectfully disagree. it just seemed like you were coming on a bit strong there lol
 
Very interesting read. Thank you. Sorry. I wasn't trying to say that you advocate Project Reason. I was just pointing out that that is the type of "Evidence" and "Expertise" that is usually presented in NSG.

I for one believe that science and religion can coexist. I just believe that science will never produce final and conclusive proof that there is no God, and religion will never try.
 
That's a real honest criticism there bud. While all of these folks do take a hard line stance against religion, there is no doubt that they have studied religion in the contexts of their fields of philosophy or science. Go back not even a handful of centuries and religion and philosophy and science are inseparable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Grayling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_C._Dennett

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Goldstein

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Atkins

Excluding the fact that there are people who have written books and movies on the topic of religion (would be pretty foolish to do so without some sort of education on the subject, no?) why you think that one's professional education and being a scholar of religion are mutually exclusive is beyond me.

I think you're being ridiculous, expecting someone from the seminary to be on the board or even to think that someone who's from a hard-line atheistic perspective to waste their education on something like a theology degree. Like i said, if you've studied philosophy, history, or science, religion has been there.

If you're upset with how they interpret the texts, are you then also saying the texts are not accessible to the majority of the public who are religious, but don't consider themselves religious scholars? At the least, all that is necessary is to treat the bible as literally true.

Based on the fact that you glossed all this over, i'm going to make the assumption that you're just mad because it's a viewpoint contrary to your own. Had you made your response more of an honest representation of the circumstances, maybe i'd believe you were actually about intellectual integrity.

sorry.

 
So I'm being ridiculous for expecting people who seek to educate the populace on a subject to be educated on it themselves?

That's a stretch to say the least.

Wikipedia? Really?
 
They are educated on it, just not up to your standards of, what, Doctorate in theology? Chances are that's not going to happen.

And, ya wikipedia, really. We're looking up theoretical explanations here, it's a profile. You're the one who said they're all equivalent to the one TV writer. Potential false representation versus actual false representation -- you win, or lose, whatever it means.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top