Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Bible

2007-04-11T10:14:41Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* Name */

{{protect|MountainDew}}

== Either un-protect or fix the Name section ==
This is a disgrace. Whoever has protected this article, fix the Name section immediately.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 01:08, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:name section fixed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:04, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

That's odd. I don't remember seeing that when I protected the article. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==Article is too brief!==
This is '''The Bible!''' Don't you think the Word of God deserves a greater article, one with more detail on the subject and its history? I think so! In fact, I think I will start out by doing just that, and here's the proposed layout:

*Intro
*Brief listing of the books within, divided of course into Old/New Testaments.
*History of the Bible...as in '''who wrote it'''.
*Why the world accepts/rejects it.
*Current status
*Include pics and charts and links.

What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:28, 11 March 2007 (EST)

== Why describe it when we can transcribe it? ==

Sounds good to me. But why not PUT the whole Bible on here? It gets quoted often enough.

:Well, the Bible is rather large. I think that the Bible as a whole work can be treated the right way here, with possibly separate articles covering each book, where greater detail is needed.

:I also uploaded a lead-in photograph, but am having trouble with it for the article. Can you help? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:43, 11 March 2007 (EST)

The links I mentioned can be two-fold: a link to online Bible sites where complete versions have been transcribed and posted; and links to Bible software which can be downloaded and run off computers. I happen to have E-Sword, which is very good [www.e-sword.net]. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:46, 11 March 2007 (EST)

==What happened so far==
I took the layout to the next step, which is subsections on both Testaments. The Old Testament has been written with emphasis on its Hebrew origins (Torah, Tanakh, etc), which I feel is a good description anyway, and does not detract from the Christian Bible with the exception of the actual arrangement of the books. I would like to see the Hebrew titles of these books in its own written language, but that may take a bit of editing the actual structure of Conservapedia to accept it.

The Apocrypha, if necessary, can have it's own subheading, but ''after'' the others as listed.

The History subsection can be written as either a history of the whole Bible, or divided into separate periods, as in history of the Torah; the Septuagint; the early Gospels, etc.

Since this is an article about the Bible, it should be restricted specifically to the Bible as a whole and its history. Other topics related to it, such as persecutions of Bible believers, divine creation as in Genesis, individual books, etc, should have their own articles. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==Is Conservapedia just a redacted Wikipedia?==

Somewhere around 80% of this article is a straight reproduction of the Wikipedia Bible article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible] with many of the less conservative points omitted. It seems that either a citation or a rewrite is in order. --[[User:Timothyo|Timothyo]] 21:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Rewrite, definately...what is there should suffice as a structure guide temporarily. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Two things that bug me about this. First and foremost, Wikipedia has a rule on it which states articles there fall under the GPFL thing, and they state specifically that all articles are free from copyright, to use, edit, misuse, whatever. So, if any content here is from Wikipedia, one can say "oh well" and leave it at that.

:Not quite... see my remarks below. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

But that led to some thinking here, and I wanted to see if the original writer(s) of this article had violated copyrights when they posted the material for the first time. I have here at home a book titled "Unger's Bible Dictionary" copyright 1966 by the Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, and the article within titled "Bible" has a number of elements that simply dovetail with the Wikipedia article. Which means there will be a re-write here so that there is no question. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:53, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, list the omitted conservative points you mentioned. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:55, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:The GDFL allows reuse only if the original authors are credited, and the article in which the material is reused is itself released under the GDFL, IIRC. So reuse of Wikipedia content is definitely not allowed here. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::When I posted that very question, it was never answered until now. Tolerate the material in question here for no more than a week, and only then for it's use as a template for something better. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::1) Aschafly has been pretty clear that he, at least, wants Conservapedia articles to be original, and not copies of anything, redacted or not.

:::2) Wikipedia is perfectly happy with the idea of building a "Wikipedia fork," that is a modified copy of Wikipedia. But. There are serious complications with this, due to the GFDL license (which is not easy for anyone to understand, apparently including Wikipedia).

:::3) The big GFDL issue, and the one that I sense Conservapedia will not agree to, is that if you copy and modify a Wikipedia article, you have to make the copy available under GFDL, too. This means a significant loss of control. For example, following the GFDL rules, if Conservapedia took a bunch of Wikipedia articles and rewrote them, and if a liberal cherrypicked the rewritten articles for the funniest examples of ludicrous over-the-top spin... including, of course, vandal edits... and published it in book form as "The Conservapedia Jokebook," I don't think Conservapedia could stop it. (Disclaimer 1: I'm not a lawyer. Disclaimer 2: I don't think ordinary lawyers understand intellectual property law. Disclaimer 3: I'm not so sure intellectual property lawyers understand intellectual property law.).

:::4) Another issue with the GFDL is that anything published under the GFDL must "preserve the history," whatever that means. If someone starts a new article at Wikipedia in 2003, and there are a thousand edits to it, and in 2007 you copy it, rework it, and republish it on Conservapedia, there is supposed to be some way for readers of the Conservapedia article to retrace all those steps if they want to. Nobody seems to be completely sure how to do this, or what does and doesn't really comply with the GFDL, which wasn't really designed to cover anything like Wikipedia. (Somewhere Wikipedia makes a qualified suggestion that ''possibly'' a simple link to the version of the WIkipedia article that served as the jumping-off point ''might'' do). So, Wikipedia encourages re-use, and there are in fact numerous commercial "mirrors" that duplicate Wikipedia content, but Wikipedia does not give any nice clear recipe on exactly how to go about producing a censored or redacted or reworked derivative of Wikipedia. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

It will be as original as possible. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Instead of waiting...==
Did a re-write of the article and removed the content in question. What remains is 1) that which is common to every work about the Bible, whether it's here, or Wikipedia, or Britannica, or many other works; and 2) the references section...Wikipedia most certainly cannot copyright a list of external sources.

But double-check what is there, and let me know what can be changed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Remaining subheadings to add==
Just added "Name" and "References" subheadings. Need to add an over-all history of the Bible, and add a subheading for the various versions in print...possibly with brief histories of each? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Separate articles==
Clicked on [[Genesis]], and got redirected back to the Bible page. Not right. Every book in the Bible should have its own detailed article page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==History of the Bible subheading==
For this, I have a rough layout:
*From the time it was first written down, under Moses, to the last OT book.
*the style of the writing, i.e. by hand and on what.
*Between the Testaments, as in the Septuagint.
*The New Testament
*the early versions of the Bible until the printing press
*Gutenburg and versions up to the KJV
*very brief listing of versions since, including internet impact.
Any other suggestions would be helpful. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:59, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Pictures==
I need two more pics to illustrate this. The first is a pic of a Torah scroll, and what I want to see are people near it with reverence. The second are good copies of New Testament fragments or pages which were hand-written. And of course, they need to be in the public domain, conforming to the rules, etc... [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:50, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==As it stands now==
Although the "History" part of it is not done at this time, the article itself should be written as a straight-up article about the Bible, with none of the allegations, questions, etc. that scholars and historians have made over the years against it. My reasons for it are two:
*Such allegations have been proven wrong time and time again, so why even bother to repeat them here?
*If such allegations need to be written down, then they need a separate article for each where they can be detailed as to points made, reasons why, who postulated them, and all evidence refutting them.
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:14, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Done==
This article is done. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:49, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Very '''very''' nice work there [[User:Karajou|Karajou]]!! Kudos! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 16:09, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::I hate kudos...but peanut M&M's is a nice stand-in! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:30, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Careful! Under 'Name', Greek ''biblos'' did ''not'' mean 'book' . It meant 'papyrus'. You are correct, though, in saying that the ''direct'' source was Greek ''biblia'', 'books' - i.e. the various canonical books of which it was composed. Also, under 'History of the Bible', you would do well to consult the most recent research of on-the-spot archeologists such as Finkelstein and Silberman before being ''too'' sure about the authorship and dating of the earliest books of the Bible! Some caution is also advisable about suggesting that the author of Matthew (whether or not that was his real name -- he doesn't claim that it was) was a direct disciple of Jesus. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== ...sources? ==

Considering how long the article is (I'm certainly impressed!), I find it odd that the entire thing just has five external links inside the article. I'm ''totally'' not going to plaster "fact" tags through the entire thing, but I think that an article with so much information could use a few more sources. Doesn't have to be right now, but more as a general remark. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:32, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, the order is for originality, which is what is here for the most part...but whether incorporated into the text or not, the article could benefit from additional sources. There are extensive links at the bottom of the article for internet info, but what I want are books from at least 50 years or more ago to include in the reference section. The article itself, which is laid out to be just ''about'' the Bible and a brief on its history, should remain the same without any of the controversial stuff others think has to be included...that is a subject for separate articles. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:39, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::Mh, yes, agreed. Tangential topics should get their own articles, possibly with "See also" links at the bottom if they're closely connected to this article. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Oh yes...if there's an article about, say Biblical criticism, then there will be a link here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:59, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The trouble is that, all the while this and other articles are locked, nobody else can insert the relevant links. It's self-defeating! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:13, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==E-Sword pic==
For the record, the image of the E-Sword screenshot is copyrighted, and used here with permission as per the summary. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Authorship of Hebrews?==

Hebrews' author has been disputed for thousands of years - it seems questionable to me to list it as a Pauline epistle without any sort of note that Paul is not its verified author. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 12:02, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

note from stanley d'cunha sdcunha@crescent.ae
i agree with daniel b douglas. the author should have at least parenthetically mentioned that the authorship of letter to the hebrews is not 100 percent by paul --stan, march 18, 2007

:I agree with you; authorship of Hebrews is disputed, but it does lean toward Paul. The point here for this article is a straight history of the Bible as I outlined above, with no sidetracking. The thing you indicated should be put in, but as a subject topic for either the article on Hebrews, or a separate article altogether. If you're willing to take up the task, write what Hebrews is all about, it's history, etc, then write the authorship; what current and past scholars said about it.

:The thing is, because the subject is the Bible, ''every thing written here about the Bible and each book is going to respect Christians and Jews''. As it was said in the Commandments page, this is a family site, and a lot of families hold the Bible as precious. We are going to respect that. Right now I am re-doing the article on [[Genesis]] because the original editor decided not to do it in a respectful way. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:30, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Translations==
At present the article rather gives the impression that all translations are equally valid. In fact, few are as literal - but, at the same time, as generally incomprehensible and occasionally as inaccurate - as the King James Version. It might therefore be worth suggesting this - with caveats - as a basic reference. On the other hand, there are other versions, such as the NIV, which deliberately skew certain words (as, for example, in Genesis 2 and Exodus 20) to fit Christian, and especially fundamentalist dogma. Readers need to be warned of this. Thus, a section needs to be added on translations, suggesting that all assertions regarding what the Bible says need to be checked with at least two translations, one of them being the KJV. The ''Blue Letter Bible'' deserves a mention in this connection, too. However, I see that the rest of us aren't allowed to add such ideas! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I closed it to protect the site from vandalism, and the vandalism was constant. I also wanted just a basic overview of the Bible and its history, but since there are so many versions, adding each one and the related controversy would be ''overkill'' for the article itself, which is what I want to avoid. This includes the subheadings on selected individual versions...just the basics was all that was needed here. So, two things:
*If it is necessary to add something to the article, just post a brief here, and I will open up the article for its inclusion...then all you have to do is to write it in and write it well.
*If the info in question is too long, and has the pro/con stuff, do a separate article on the subject, and I will get a "see also" subheading added. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:46, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks. Why don't I, as a professional translator, just write it here? You can then assess and edit it before including it yourself if you wish, without risk of vandals butting in (though it would be nice to consult me before altering it)!...

:::(Title) '''Bible translations'''
:::When quoting passages from the Bible in Conservapedia, it is important to remember that the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew (apart from a few sections in Aramaic), and the New Testament in Greek. English versions of these often come at second-hand, are rarely completely accurate, and can never be regarded (any more than can any translation of any document whatever) as ''the'' translation. However, some general guidelines are appropriate here:

:::1. Always refer to at least one 'literal' translation, such as the King James Version. This may be old-fashioned, and is occasionally incompetent, but at least it attempts to render every word of the original, and indicates in italics any conjectural forms. It has other advantages for reference-purposes, too (see below).

:::2. In choosing your secondary source, compare it carefully with the KJV to see whether any words have been 'skewed' to fit modern Christian preconceptions. Neither the NIV nor the ''New Jerusalem Bible'', with their particular religious affiliations, are entirely guiltless in this regard. The ''New English Bible'', while extremely readable and innocent of this particular problem, can occasionally be over-free. Up to 50 other versions can be compared verse-for-verse here [http://www.biblegateway.com/], whereupon the 'mavericks' will usually be found to stand out clearly. Bear in mind, though, that most recent translations are copyright.

:::3. A further useful reference is the ''Blue Letter Bible'', which may be found here [http://www.blueletterbible.org/], and which presents and analyses the original Hebrew, Aramaic and/or Greek versions alongside the KJV text.

:::4. Finally, reference to a good Concordance such as Young's ''Analytical Concordance to the Bible'' or Cruden's ''Complete Concordance to the Old and New Testaments'' can help to tie down the true meanings of the original texts: these, too, are based on the KJV text - a fact which renders point 1. above doubly important.

:::''And always remember, even then, that any words you may quote in English here are '''not''' the original words!''

::[OK, try that for size!] --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:18, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I think that calls for a separate article. I do agree with you that over the years men have distorted the Bible's original meaning and words; for example, in the New Testament Jesus is refered to by the title of "cornerstone", which is the first, most important block of the foundation of a building. The NIV changes that to "capstone", which is ''the last'' block added to a building...and it's not right to do everything first and maybe add Jesus last, when it should be the other way around.

'''Differences Between Bible Versions''' might make a good title, with it written in parallel fashion, say the KJV on the left, the NIV on the right, with differences highlighted and reasons for the changes. A great amount of detail can go into it. What do you think? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:31, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, the Hebrew means ''either'' 'cornerstone' ''or'' 'capstone' - though it's difficult to see how you can have a ''chief'' cornerstone. I suspect the imagery is meant to be more like that on the back of the dollar bill - whence, perhaps, the imagery on the back of the dollar bill!

::Yes, '''Differences Between Bible Versions''' looks good to me (as long as ''you'' do it and mention the main points above, especially the last one!), and the NIV would provide some much-needed comparisons (or rather, contrasts)! You can take your examples directly from the admitted rant at [http://www.av1611.org/niv.html]. You'd need to be careful about coypright, though. I imagine the NIV is still in copyright, in which case you'd need permission for any extensive quoting. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Note: I TIMOTHY 3:16 in the original Greek does not say God. There is a use of Kai (and) that ''might'' carry the God reference from I TIMOTHY 3:15, but that's debateable. The key word is "estin" -- he is, he becomes. (BTW, the Vulgate follows the same format as the Greek). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Note: in PHILIPPIANS 2:6 "consider" is in the Vulgate (arbitratus): the Greek has egesato, from agazomai, from agamai which can mean either admire or envy. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Note: In the original Greek, the text of LUKE 2:33 is pater autou (his father), Joe ain't mentioned. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yet another note: COLOSSIANS 1:14 does not mention blood in the original Greek. The NIV is actually more accurate. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:59, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Again, re Mark 1:2,3 -- the KJV edited the text to fix the error. The original Greek is en to esaia to prophete (in (the) Isaiah the prophet). Not "in the Prophets". Ditto for the Vulgate, in Esaia propheta. The KJV is inaccurate in it's translation, apparently in an attempt to fix an error by the author of Mark. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 09:11, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:I would suggest also looking into ''The Five Books of Moses'', by Robert Alter, [http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780393019551&itm=1], as it shows the flaws in all well-known translations, not just the KJV, but the LXX and Vulgate as well.
:Personal comment (as the second professional translator on this page): Of special note is that whole "in the beginning" bit shows more about the thought patterns of the Greeks and Romans with their insertion of ''en arche'' (why no Greek font?) and ''in principio'' than it does anything else -- "In the beginning" does not exist in the Hebrew. In fact, much of the OT as defined in the Septuagint and Vulgate, and by extension the KJV, is that way, and the NT was clearly aimed at the Greeks.
:Finally, the translations from the Hebrew have reflected an attempt to translate based on newer iterations of Hebrew, and often miss the nuances of the original Hebrew text. For example, the "without form, and void" is semantically incorrect, the better translation is "welter and waste". There are nuances missed in the KJV, and the Vulgate's "inanis et vacua" is no better at catching the nuances. The Greek "aoratos kai akataskeuastos" (aargh, where is the greek font?!?), misses the nuance in the same exact way. Why? Because while there is a myth that the Vulgate and KJV were translated from the original Hebrew, they are actually faithful translations of the Septuagint, as is obvious to anyone familiar with forensic linguistics. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 15:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::The KJV as it is right now is based on the last English language update it had (1727).

::When the scholars did the KJV back in the early 1600s, they did consult and use other existing versions as guides, the Septuagint and the Vulgate being two. But their main guides were the Masoretic Text as used by the Jews, and the best Greek translations then current, as well as the best ancient Greek manuscripts they knew existed for the New Testament. For that particular time frame, they knew what they were doing. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Of course, the Masoretic texts being compiled 1000 to 1700 years after the original text, and Hebrew being a language like all other living languages, that is to say a changing one, the Hebrew of the original is substantially different (think Modern English vs the Old English of Beowulf). Nonetheless, given that he same exact mistakes are found in the KJV, the LXX and the Vulgate, it is clear that the LXX and Vulgate were used as more than mere guides.
:Given that the NT was written in Greek (Koine to be exact), I'm not sure what your point is re "best ancient Greek manuscripts they knew existed for the New Testament". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 05:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

With respect, I do not believe in the statements doubting authorship of the Bible by anyone other than the Biblical writers of tradition. But, and I do want to make this clear to everyone, what NousEpirrhytos has written is still part of the Bible's history, albeit a critical view (and he did do a lot of groundwork by the way), and as such I think a separte article concerning textual criticism of the Bible is warranted. According to rules set down by Conservapedia, there must be a point and counterpoint, i.e. a clear concise and authoritative rebuttal to a clear and concise critical view. What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think that might be served, in part, precisely by the two-column arrangement you were suggesting earlier - KJV against NIV, whose manifest corruptions you can easily collect from the web-rant mentioned earlier. On the other hand, it might be more positively productive to add a third column on the right representing a reasonable modern compromise - NAS, perhaps, culled from Bible Gateway. If there's only room for two, though, I think, on reflection, that I would vote for KJV alongisde NAS. Take care with the title, BTW. The word 'Bible' needs to come first, or people aren't going to find the article. How about 'Bible versions compared'? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:32, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::We might not be able to use the NAS, as it is copyrighted by the Lockman Foundation. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm sure there's a way to handle this...however, the issue of the translations' relative accuracy might lead to original research (as in my "Notes" above). Most critical discussions of translations are new enough to be copyrighted, so probably not useable, and not everyone can read Greek or Latin, so including these older texts might be problematic. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Why not ask Lockman? You're entitled to quote up to 200 words or so with due acknowledgement without permission anyway as 'fair use'. They might be happy to let you use more for nothing if you point out that it's by way of criticism and review, and recommending them as a modern source. Otherwise choose another reasonable, modern one? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Portal ==

Please add <nowiki>[[Category:Book of Worship]]</nowiki> as a Bible category.--[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 14:30, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:Can do! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Truth redirect==
Why is [[Truth]] redirected here?

==Name==
Once again, take care! Greek ''biblos'' doesn't mean 'book' (it's 'papyrus'), and ''la Biblia'' isn't Latin (though ''biblia'' is)! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:22, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
:Found the source...''biblos'' does mean ''book''...but before that it came from ''byblos'', meaning papyrus. ''biblos'' in turn led to the Latin word ''biblia'', and the word ''bible'' came to us from that via the French. The line shall be updated. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:09, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
::The original meaning of biblos is indeed papyrus, scroll, paper. The usage of the word to mean book occurs a bit later in Koine, although biblion (little book) was more common. Biblia is from the plural of biblion, and comes from the original title of the Greek version of the bible, ta biblia ta hagia -- τὰ βιβλία τὰ ἅγια -- meaning "the holy books"
::BTW, the word was ''never'' Byblos -- that was the name of a Phonoecian city that produced papyri, biblos was then derived from the town name with an iota replacing the upsilon. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:29, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I just noticed this: ''...Greek Christians had called the Scriptures la Biblia...'' -- la is '''not''' a definite article in Greek, it only accurs in Romance languages as a shortening of the demonstative article ''illa''. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 16:43, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Absolutely. Hence my original remark. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, I know -- but it went over like a flock of seagulls...the shame!
:::BTW Karajou, change la to ta and keep in mind that biblia is plural. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 06:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

The source of information I used came from Dr. Merril F. Unger, a leading theologian/Biblical historian in the first half of the 20th century. If your material is more accurate, please use it here and update the line in question...and if you can use the actual Greek letters like you did here, that would be better! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:57, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Are you sure you didn't just mistype the info from Unger? (It's also possible that the typesetter messed up -- I've yet to see a book that didn't have at least one typesetting error). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 05:43, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:For reference of τὰ βιβλία τὰ ἅγια see [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Bible dictionary.com]. For future reference of the Greek definite article see [http://www.monachos.net/greek/8_definite_articles.shtml here] [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 05:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::As far as Unger having a typo, I'm going to concede your point slightly in that Unger could have been told ''ta Biblia'', but he may have heard it as ''la Biblia''...people do that sometimes, and I'm just as guilty of it as anyone else.

::Just so you know, when it comes to people critical of the Bible, and I'm telling you this from books on the subject, they are always questioning or criticizing the writing; it's either too young or too many mistakes or they could have wrote in the wrong word or they had a typesetting error. And it's always about the Bible. It's never about the Civil War; it's never about Babe Ruth; it's never about what anyone else wrote on any subject under the sun...it's always the Bible that has those mistakes. Every single time. And right now, I strongly feel that you are doing the same thing. But it doesn't say you're a bad person.

::So, what I would like for you to do is to go to a Christian book outlet and purchase anything by author Josh McDowell, especially ''Evidence That Demands a Verdict''. I appreciate the fact that you have extensive knowledge concerning languages, and you are willing to educate yourself more in that field. But you also need to educate yourself in the history of the Bible, and not from a critical point of view, hence McDowell. Like you, I want the correct information on this page, but as someone who was trained and qualified in law enforcement, I know the difference between emphirical evidence and hearsay; and I cannot and will not accept hearsay in any article I write. If it won't stand up in a court room, it won't stand up here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::If it's from a Christian bookshop, it goes without saying that ''Evidence That Demands a Verdict'' is biased towards standard (or perhaps not-so-standard) Christian readings of the scriptures - which Jews (whose scriptures the Old Testament is) are of course constantly amazed at - rather than being a purely dispassionate, scholastic approach. So if we're talking about educating ourselves in the history of the Bible, then it's the history of the Bible that needs to be studied, and not merely what we ''would like'' the history of the Bible to have been. Thus (for example) Schonfield's ''The Passover Plot'' and Finkelstein & Silberman's ''The Bible Unearthed'' ought also to be studied, as should any number of reputable works on the Dead Sea Scrolls (mainly for the contextual light that they throw on the subject). All of them throw light - however unwelcome - on the subject. More to the point, the Bible itself should be read - and not just the bits of it that happen to fit our particular thesis. Fact should not be regarded as 'criticism': if it's truly fact, it's purely dispassionate.

:::As for 'emphirical evidence' on what other books 'could have wrote', perhaps you should take a look at Shakespeare, or Nostradamus, or the Egyptian Book of the Dead, or anything of the kind. Such questions always arise where people attach inordinate importance to the exact words of ancient texts (perhaps you should read more of them?), and not merely in the case of the Bible - though, obviously, the more this is rammed down people's throats, the more likely they are to want to look at it critically. Can you blame them? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:13, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I made no attempt to "ram" the Bible down your throat, and I doubt anyone else has. But I am not going to sit here and let the Bible be disrespected because you have a personal dislike for it. Do not push that disrespect here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Karajou, why do you assume I'm ignorant of Christian apologetics? I was raised in an evangelical church -- when I began to question many things that only received dogmatic answers I began to realise just how vapid that which they were trying to ram down my throat was. Since that time I have read score of books on ''all'' religions, and the more religions I've studied, the more I've seen the truth behind them -- the emperor is naked.
:What is this hearsay of which you speak? Please, do elaborate rather than throwing cute terms around.
:Now, when are you going to fix ''la'' to ''ta''? Hey, if you want Con-pedia to be the laughing-stock of religion, feel free to leave it, but be aware that ''la'' is not a definite article either in Greek or Latin (a language bereft of a definite aticle). BTW, I would doubt Unger misheard the word -- ''if'' he knew Greek, he would have known the definite article off of the top of his head, and if he knew it not he was no ''true'' scholar of the NT. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:51, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
:One other point: books on the Civil War, Babe Ruth, etc., have never been claimed to be infallible, so your analogy does not pass muster. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:54, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Several things. First, you are saying that ''Evidence That Demands a Verdict'' is "biased" towards the Bible, Christian apologetics, etc. I've heard that excuse before, from an evolutionist who, when confronted with a book detailing evidence for a young creation, summarily dismissed it as "creationist", and refused to even look at it. That shows bias right there. What sort of bias did you bring to "Con-pedia" (as you call it)? Was it the sort of bias that is against the Bible? Do you intend to put anything at all possible here which disparages the Bible? And if you're truly educated than I need not remind you of the definition of "hearsay", as you know it yourself. I remind you, this article is about the Bible, and I don't have to explain things to people who come here with the intent of disparaging it. Do not do it here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Tell you what, I have a better question for both of you, Petrus and Nous: '''are you pushing your own religious beliefs on myself, this article, and this website?''' A simple yes or no will suffice. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:23, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:When you explain precisely to what you refer when you say hearsay, I shall answer your question. To what specific instances do you refer? How is a charge of hearsay relevant here. What would be direct evidence? Is it not true that exegesis plays a large role in presenting "evidence" from the bible, and as exegesis relies on apologetic analysis and reconstruction is it not a form of hearsay. There are, of course, rhetorical question, but please do answer them if you wish this discussion to be of any value.
:As to young earth creationism, I'm very well aware of the arguments put forth by proponents. However, in reading them critically, which is my ''modus legendi'' for all books, they simply fail scientifically and logically. The various explanations of "tired light" and "flood geology" (etc.) are too ludicrous to take seriously, violating, as they do, the laws of physics, geology and plate tectonics. Yes, I know of the argument that "god can do anything he wants", but said argument is really just a tautology.
:BTW -- All ancient religions have their own creation story, what makes the bible's verson fact and the others mere myth? (rhetorical). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 06:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Bible

2007-04-10T21:54:21Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* Name */

{{protect|MountainDew}}

== Either un-protect or fix the Name section ==
This is a disgrace. Whoever has protected this article, fix the Name section immediately.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 01:08, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:name section fixed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:04, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

That's odd. I don't remember seeing that when I protected the article. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==Article is too brief!==
This is '''The Bible!''' Don't you think the Word of God deserves a greater article, one with more detail on the subject and its history? I think so! In fact, I think I will start out by doing just that, and here's the proposed layout:

*Intro
*Brief listing of the books within, divided of course into Old/New Testaments.
*History of the Bible...as in '''who wrote it'''.
*Why the world accepts/rejects it.
*Current status
*Include pics and charts and links.

What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:28, 11 March 2007 (EST)

== Why describe it when we can transcribe it? ==

Sounds good to me. But why not PUT the whole Bible on here? It gets quoted often enough.

:Well, the Bible is rather large. I think that the Bible as a whole work can be treated the right way here, with possibly separate articles covering each book, where greater detail is needed.

:I also uploaded a lead-in photograph, but am having trouble with it for the article. Can you help? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:43, 11 March 2007 (EST)

The links I mentioned can be two-fold: a link to online Bible sites where complete versions have been transcribed and posted; and links to Bible software which can be downloaded and run off computers. I happen to have E-Sword, which is very good [www.e-sword.net]. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:46, 11 March 2007 (EST)

==What happened so far==
I took the layout to the next step, which is subsections on both Testaments. The Old Testament has been written with emphasis on its Hebrew origins (Torah, Tanakh, etc), which I feel is a good description anyway, and does not detract from the Christian Bible with the exception of the actual arrangement of the books. I would like to see the Hebrew titles of these books in its own written language, but that may take a bit of editing the actual structure of Conservapedia to accept it.

The Apocrypha, if necessary, can have it's own subheading, but ''after'' the others as listed.

The History subsection can be written as either a history of the whole Bible, or divided into separate periods, as in history of the Torah; the Septuagint; the early Gospels, etc.

Since this is an article about the Bible, it should be restricted specifically to the Bible as a whole and its history. Other topics related to it, such as persecutions of Bible believers, divine creation as in Genesis, individual books, etc, should have their own articles. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==Is Conservapedia just a redacted Wikipedia?==

Somewhere around 80% of this article is a straight reproduction of the Wikipedia Bible article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible] with many of the less conservative points omitted. It seems that either a citation or a rewrite is in order. --[[User:Timothyo|Timothyo]] 21:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Rewrite, definately...what is there should suffice as a structure guide temporarily. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Two things that bug me about this. First and foremost, Wikipedia has a rule on it which states articles there fall under the GPFL thing, and they state specifically that all articles are free from copyright, to use, edit, misuse, whatever. So, if any content here is from Wikipedia, one can say "oh well" and leave it at that.

:Not quite... see my remarks below. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

But that led to some thinking here, and I wanted to see if the original writer(s) of this article had violated copyrights when they posted the material for the first time. I have here at home a book titled "Unger's Bible Dictionary" copyright 1966 by the Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, and the article within titled "Bible" has a number of elements that simply dovetail with the Wikipedia article. Which means there will be a re-write here so that there is no question. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:53, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, list the omitted conservative points you mentioned. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:55, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:The GDFL allows reuse only if the original authors are credited, and the article in which the material is reused is itself released under the GDFL, IIRC. So reuse of Wikipedia content is definitely not allowed here. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::When I posted that very question, it was never answered until now. Tolerate the material in question here for no more than a week, and only then for it's use as a template for something better. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::1) Aschafly has been pretty clear that he, at least, wants Conservapedia articles to be original, and not copies of anything, redacted or not.

:::2) Wikipedia is perfectly happy with the idea of building a "Wikipedia fork," that is a modified copy of Wikipedia. But. There are serious complications with this, due to the GFDL license (which is not easy for anyone to understand, apparently including Wikipedia).

:::3) The big GFDL issue, and the one that I sense Conservapedia will not agree to, is that if you copy and modify a Wikipedia article, you have to make the copy available under GFDL, too. This means a significant loss of control. For example, following the GFDL rules, if Conservapedia took a bunch of Wikipedia articles and rewrote them, and if a liberal cherrypicked the rewritten articles for the funniest examples of ludicrous over-the-top spin... including, of course, vandal edits... and published it in book form as "The Conservapedia Jokebook," I don't think Conservapedia could stop it. (Disclaimer 1: I'm not a lawyer. Disclaimer 2: I don't think ordinary lawyers understand intellectual property law. Disclaimer 3: I'm not so sure intellectual property lawyers understand intellectual property law.).

:::4) Another issue with the GFDL is that anything published under the GFDL must "preserve the history," whatever that means. If someone starts a new article at Wikipedia in 2003, and there are a thousand edits to it, and in 2007 you copy it, rework it, and republish it on Conservapedia, there is supposed to be some way for readers of the Conservapedia article to retrace all those steps if they want to. Nobody seems to be completely sure how to do this, or what does and doesn't really comply with the GFDL, which wasn't really designed to cover anything like Wikipedia. (Somewhere Wikipedia makes a qualified suggestion that ''possibly'' a simple link to the version of the WIkipedia article that served as the jumping-off point ''might'' do). So, Wikipedia encourages re-use, and there are in fact numerous commercial "mirrors" that duplicate Wikipedia content, but Wikipedia does not give any nice clear recipe on exactly how to go about producing a censored or redacted or reworked derivative of Wikipedia. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

It will be as original as possible. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Instead of waiting...==
Did a re-write of the article and removed the content in question. What remains is 1) that which is common to every work about the Bible, whether it's here, or Wikipedia, or Britannica, or many other works; and 2) the references section...Wikipedia most certainly cannot copyright a list of external sources.

But double-check what is there, and let me know what can be changed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Remaining subheadings to add==
Just added "Name" and "References" subheadings. Need to add an over-all history of the Bible, and add a subheading for the various versions in print...possibly with brief histories of each? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Separate articles==
Clicked on [[Genesis]], and got redirected back to the Bible page. Not right. Every book in the Bible should have its own detailed article page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==History of the Bible subheading==
For this, I have a rough layout:
*From the time it was first written down, under Moses, to the last OT book.
*the style of the writing, i.e. by hand and on what.
*Between the Testaments, as in the Septuagint.
*The New Testament
*the early versions of the Bible until the printing press
*Gutenburg and versions up to the KJV
*very brief listing of versions since, including internet impact.
Any other suggestions would be helpful. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:59, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Pictures==
I need two more pics to illustrate this. The first is a pic of a Torah scroll, and what I want to see are people near it with reverence. The second are good copies of New Testament fragments or pages which were hand-written. And of course, they need to be in the public domain, conforming to the rules, etc... [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:50, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==As it stands now==
Although the "History" part of it is not done at this time, the article itself should be written as a straight-up article about the Bible, with none of the allegations, questions, etc. that scholars and historians have made over the years against it. My reasons for it are two:
*Such allegations have been proven wrong time and time again, so why even bother to repeat them here?
*If such allegations need to be written down, then they need a separate article for each where they can be detailed as to points made, reasons why, who postulated them, and all evidence refutting them.
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:14, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Done==
This article is done. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:49, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Very '''very''' nice work there [[User:Karajou|Karajou]]!! Kudos! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 16:09, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::I hate kudos...but peanut M&M's is a nice stand-in! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:30, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Careful! Under 'Name', Greek ''biblos'' did ''not'' mean 'book' . It meant 'papyrus'. You are correct, though, in saying that the ''direct'' source was Greek ''biblia'', 'books' - i.e. the various canonical books of which it was composed. Also, under 'History of the Bible', you would do well to consult the most recent research of on-the-spot archeologists such as Finkelstein and Silberman before being ''too'' sure about the authorship and dating of the earliest books of the Bible! Some caution is also advisable about suggesting that the author of Matthew (whether or not that was his real name -- he doesn't claim that it was) was a direct disciple of Jesus. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== ...sources? ==

Considering how long the article is (I'm certainly impressed!), I find it odd that the entire thing just has five external links inside the article. I'm ''totally'' not going to plaster "fact" tags through the entire thing, but I think that an article with so much information could use a few more sources. Doesn't have to be right now, but more as a general remark. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:32, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, the order is for originality, which is what is here for the most part...but whether incorporated into the text or not, the article could benefit from additional sources. There are extensive links at the bottom of the article for internet info, but what I want are books from at least 50 years or more ago to include in the reference section. The article itself, which is laid out to be just ''about'' the Bible and a brief on its history, should remain the same without any of the controversial stuff others think has to be included...that is a subject for separate articles. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:39, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::Mh, yes, agreed. Tangential topics should get their own articles, possibly with "See also" links at the bottom if they're closely connected to this article. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Oh yes...if there's an article about, say Biblical criticism, then there will be a link here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:59, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The trouble is that, all the while this and other articles are locked, nobody else can insert the relevant links. It's self-defeating! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:13, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==E-Sword pic==
For the record, the image of the E-Sword screenshot is copyrighted, and used here with permission as per the summary. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Authorship of Hebrews?==

Hebrews' author has been disputed for thousands of years - it seems questionable to me to list it as a Pauline epistle without any sort of note that Paul is not its verified author. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 12:02, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

note from stanley d'cunha sdcunha@crescent.ae
i agree with daniel b douglas. the author should have at least parenthetically mentioned that the authorship of letter to the hebrews is not 100 percent by paul --stan, march 18, 2007

:I agree with you; authorship of Hebrews is disputed, but it does lean toward Paul. The point here for this article is a straight history of the Bible as I outlined above, with no sidetracking. The thing you indicated should be put in, but as a subject topic for either the article on Hebrews, or a separate article altogether. If you're willing to take up the task, write what Hebrews is all about, it's history, etc, then write the authorship; what current and past scholars said about it.

:The thing is, because the subject is the Bible, ''every thing written here about the Bible and each book is going to respect Christians and Jews''. As it was said in the Commandments page, this is a family site, and a lot of families hold the Bible as precious. We are going to respect that. Right now I am re-doing the article on [[Genesis]] because the original editor decided not to do it in a respectful way. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:30, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Translations==
At present the article rather gives the impression that all translations are equally valid. In fact, few are as literal - but, at the same time, as generally incomprehensible and occasionally as inaccurate - as the King James Version. It might therefore be worth suggesting this - with caveats - as a basic reference. On the other hand, there are other versions, such as the NIV, which deliberately skew certain words (as, for example, in Genesis 2 and Exodus 20) to fit Christian, and especially fundamentalist dogma. Readers need to be warned of this. Thus, a section needs to be added on translations, suggesting that all assertions regarding what the Bible says need to be checked with at least two translations, one of them being the KJV. The ''Blue Letter Bible'' deserves a mention in this connection, too. However, I see that the rest of us aren't allowed to add such ideas! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I closed it to protect the site from vandalism, and the vandalism was constant. I also wanted just a basic overview of the Bible and its history, but since there are so many versions, adding each one and the related controversy would be ''overkill'' for the article itself, which is what I want to avoid. This includes the subheadings on selected individual versions...just the basics was all that was needed here. So, two things:
*If it is necessary to add something to the article, just post a brief here, and I will open up the article for its inclusion...then all you have to do is to write it in and write it well.
*If the info in question is too long, and has the pro/con stuff, do a separate article on the subject, and I will get a "see also" subheading added. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:46, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks. Why don't I, as a professional translator, just write it here? You can then assess and edit it before including it yourself if you wish, without risk of vandals butting in (though it would be nice to consult me before altering it)!...

:::(Title) '''Bible translations'''
:::When quoting passages from the Bible in Conservapedia, it is important to remember that the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew (apart from a few sections in Aramaic), and the New Testament in Greek. English versions of these often come at second-hand, are rarely completely accurate, and can never be regarded (any more than can any translation of any document whatever) as ''the'' translation. However, some general guidelines are appropriate here:

:::1. Always refer to at least one 'literal' translation, such as the King James Version. This may be old-fashioned, and is occasionally incompetent, but at least it attempts to render every word of the original, and indicates in italics any conjectural forms. It has other advantages for reference-purposes, too (see below).

:::2. In choosing your secondary source, compare it carefully with the KJV to see whether any words have been 'skewed' to fit modern Christian preconceptions. Neither the NIV nor the ''New Jerusalem Bible'', with their particular religious affiliations, are entirely guiltless in this regard. The ''New English Bible'', while extremely readable and innocent of this particular problem, can occasionally be over-free. Up to 50 other versions can be compared verse-for-verse here [http://www.biblegateway.com/], whereupon the 'mavericks' will usually be found to stand out clearly. Bear in mind, though, that most recent translations are copyright.

:::3. A further useful reference is the ''Blue Letter Bible'', which may be found here [http://www.blueletterbible.org/], and which presents and analyses the original Hebrew, Aramaic and/or Greek versions alongside the KJV text.

:::4. Finally, reference to a good Concordance such as Young's ''Analytical Concordance to the Bible'' or Cruden's ''Complete Concordance to the Old and New Testaments'' can help to tie down the true meanings of the original texts: these, too, are based on the KJV text - a fact which renders point 1. above doubly important.

:::''And always remember, even then, that any words you may quote in English here are '''not''' the original words!''

::[OK, try that for size!] --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:18, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I think that calls for a separate article. I do agree with you that over the years men have distorted the Bible's original meaning and words; for example, in the New Testament Jesus is refered to by the title of "cornerstone", which is the first, most important block of the foundation of a building. The NIV changes that to "capstone", which is ''the last'' block added to a building...and it's not right to do everything first and maybe add Jesus last, when it should be the other way around.

'''Differences Between Bible Versions''' might make a good title, with it written in parallel fashion, say the KJV on the left, the NIV on the right, with differences highlighted and reasons for the changes. A great amount of detail can go into it. What do you think? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:31, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, the Hebrew means ''either'' 'cornerstone' ''or'' 'capstone' - though it's difficult to see how you can have a ''chief'' cornerstone. I suspect the imagery is meant to be more like that on the back of the dollar bill - whence, perhaps, the imagery on the back of the dollar bill!

::Yes, '''Differences Between Bible Versions''' looks good to me (as long as ''you'' do it and mention the main points above, especially the last one!), and the NIV would provide some much-needed comparisons (or rather, contrasts)! You can take your examples directly from the admitted rant at [http://www.av1611.org/niv.html]. You'd need to be careful about coypright, though. I imagine the NIV is still in copyright, in which case you'd need permission for any extensive quoting. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Note: I TIMOTHY 3:16 in the original Greek does not say God. There is a use of Kai (and) that ''might'' carry the God reference from I TIMOTHY 3:15, but that's debateable. The key word is "estin" -- he is, he becomes. (BTW, the Vulgate follows the same format as the Greek). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Note: in PHILIPPIANS 2:6 "consider" is in the Vulgate (arbitratus): the Greek has egesato, from agazomai, from agamai which can mean either admire or envy. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Note: In the original Greek, the text of LUKE 2:33 is pater autou (his father), Joe ain't mentioned. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yet another note: COLOSSIANS 1:14 does not mention blood in the original Greek. The NIV is actually more accurate. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:59, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Again, re Mark 1:2,3 -- the KJV edited the text to fix the error. The original Greek is en to esaia to prophete (in (the) Isaiah the prophet). Not "in the Prophets". Ditto for the Vulgate, in Esaia propheta. The KJV is inaccurate in it's translation, apparently in an attempt to fix an error by the author of Mark. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 09:11, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:I would suggest also looking into ''The Five Books of Moses'', by Robert Alter, [http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780393019551&itm=1], as it shows the flaws in all well-known translations, not just the KJV, but the LXX and Vulgate as well.
:Personal comment (as the second professional translator on this page): Of special note is that whole "in the beginning" bit shows more about the thought patterns of the Greeks and Romans with their insertion of ''en arche'' (why no Greek font?) and ''in principio'' than it does anything else -- "In the beginning" does not exist in the Hebrew. In fact, much of the OT as defined in the Septuagint and Vulgate, and by extension the KJV, is that way, and the NT was clearly aimed at the Greeks.
:Finally, the translations from the Hebrew have reflected an attempt to translate based on newer iterations of Hebrew, and often miss the nuances of the original Hebrew text. For example, the "without form, and void" is semantically incorrect, the better translation is "welter and waste". There are nuances missed in the KJV, and the Vulgate's "inanis et vacua" is no better at catching the nuances. The Greek "aoratos kai akataskeuastos" (aargh, where is the greek font?!?), misses the nuance in the same exact way. Why? Because while there is a myth that the Vulgate and KJV were translated from the original Hebrew, they are actually faithful translations of the Septuagint, as is obvious to anyone familiar with forensic linguistics. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 15:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::The KJV as it is right now is based on the last English language update it had (1727).

::When the scholars did the KJV back in the early 1600s, they did consult and use other existing versions as guides, the Septuagint and the Vulgate being two. But their main guides were the Masoretic Text as used by the Jews, and the best Greek translations then current, as well as the best ancient Greek manuscripts they knew existed for the New Testament. For that particular time frame, they knew what they were doing. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Of course, the Masoretic texts being compiled 1000 to 1700 years after the original text, and Hebrew being a language like all other living languages, that is to say a changing one, the Hebrew of the original is substantially different (think Modern English vs the Old English of Beowulf). Nonetheless, given that he same exact mistakes are found in the KJV, the LXX and the Vulgate, it is clear that the LXX and Vulgate were used as more than mere guides.
:Given that the NT was written in Greek (Koine to be exact), I'm not sure what your point is re "best ancient Greek manuscripts they knew existed for the New Testament". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 05:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

With respect, I do not believe in the statements doubting authorship of the Bible by anyone other than the Biblical writers of tradition. But, and I do want to make this clear to everyone, what NousEpirrhytos has written is still part of the Bible's history, albeit a critical view (and he did do a lot of groundwork by the way), and as such I think a separte article concerning textual criticism of the Bible is warranted. According to rules set down by Conservapedia, there must be a point and counterpoint, i.e. a clear concise and authoritative rebuttal to a clear and concise critical view. What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think that might be served, in part, precisely by the two-column arrangement you were suggesting earlier - KJV against NIV, whose manifest corruptions you can easily collect from the web-rant mentioned earlier. On the other hand, it might be more positively productive to add a third column on the right representing a reasonable modern compromise - NAS, perhaps, culled from Bible Gateway. If there's only room for two, though, I think, on reflection, that I would vote for KJV alongisde NAS. Take care with the title, BTW. The word 'Bible' needs to come first, or people aren't going to find the article. How about 'Bible versions compared'? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:32, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::We might not be able to use the NAS, as it is copyrighted by the Lockman Foundation. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm sure there's a way to handle this...however, the issue of the translations' relative accuracy might lead to original research (as in my "Notes" above). Most critical discussions of translations are new enough to be copyrighted, so probably not useable, and not everyone can read Greek or Latin, so including these older texts might be problematic. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Why not ask Lockman? You're entitled to quote up to 200 words or so with due acknowledgement without permission anyway as 'fair use'. They might be happy to let you use more for nothing if you point out that it's by way of criticism and review, and recommending them as a modern source. Otherwise choose another reasonable, modern one? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Portal ==

Please add <nowiki>[[Category:Book of Worship]]</nowiki> as a Bible category.--[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 14:30, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:Can do! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Truth redirect==
Why is [[Truth]] redirected here?

==Name==
Once again, take care! Greek ''biblos'' doesn't mean 'book' (it's 'papyrus'), and ''la Biblia'' isn't Latin (though ''biblia'' is)! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:22, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
:Found the source...''biblos'' does mean ''book''...but before that it came from ''byblos'', meaning papyrus. ''biblos'' in turn led to the Latin word ''biblia'', and the word ''bible'' came to us from that via the French. The line shall be updated. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:09, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
::The original meaning of biblos is indeed papyrus, scroll, paper. The usage of the word to mean book occurs a bit later in Koine, although biblion (little book) was more common. Biblia is from the plural of biblion, and comes from the original title of the Greek version of the bible, ta biblia ta hagia -- τὰ βιβλία τὰ ἅγια -- meaning "the holy books"
::BTW, the word was ''never'' Byblos -- that was the name of a Phonoecian city that produced papyri, biblos was then derived from the town name with an iota replacing the upsilon. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:29, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I just noticed this: ''...Greek Christians had called the Scriptures la Biblia...'' -- la is '''not''' a definite article in Greek, it only accurs in Romance languages as a shortening of the demonstative article ''illa''. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 16:43, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Absolutely. Hence my original remark. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, I know -- but it went over like a flock of seagulls...the shame!
:::BTW Karajou, change la to ta and keep in mind that biblia is plural. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 06:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

The source of information I used came from Dr. Merril F. Unger, a leading theologian/Biblical historian in the first half of the 20th century. If your material is more accurate, please use it here and update the line in question...and if you can use the actual Greek letters like you did here, that would be better! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:57, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Are you sure you didn't just mistype the info from Unger? (It's also possible that the typesetter messed up -- I've yet to see a book that didn't have at least one typesetting error). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 05:43, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:For reference of τὰ βιβλία τὰ ἅγια see [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Bible dictionary.com]. For future reference of the Greek definite article see [http://www.monachos.net/greek/8_definite_articles.shtml here] [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 05:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::As far as Unger having a typo, I'm going to concede your point slightly in that Unger could have been told ''ta Biblia'', but he may have heard it as ''la Biblia''...people do that sometimes, and I'm just as guilty of it as anyone else.

::Just so you know, when it comes to people critical of the Bible, and I'm telling you this from books on the subject, they are always questioning or criticizing the writing; it's either too young or too many mistakes or they could have wrote in the wrong word or they had a typesetting error. And it's always about the Bible. It's never about the Civil War; it's never about Babe Ruth; it's never about what anyone else wrote on any subject under the sun...it's always the Bible that has those mistakes. Every single time. And right now, I strongly feel that you are doing the same thing. But it doesn't say you're a bad person.

::So, what I would like for you to do is to go to a Christian book outlet and purchase anything by author Josh McDowell, especially ''Evidence That Demands a Verdict''. I appreciate the fact that you have extensive knowledge concerning languages, and you are willing to educate yourself more in that field. But you also need to educate yourself in the history of the Bible, and not from a critical point of view, hence McDowell. Like you, I want the correct information on this page, but as someone who was trained and qualified in law enforcement, I know the difference between emphirical evidence and hearsay; and I cannot and will not accept hearsay in any article I write. If it won't stand up in a court room, it won't stand up here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::If it's from a Christian bookshop, it goes without saying that ''Evidence That Demands a Verdict'' is biased towards standard (or perhaps not-so-standard) Christian readings of the scriptures - which Jews (whose scriptures the Old Testament is) are of course constantly amazed at - rather than being a purely dispassionate, scholastic approach. So if we're talking about educating ourselves in the history of the Bible, then it's the history of the Bible that needs to be studied, and not merely what we ''would like'' the history of the Bible to have been. Thus (for example) Schonfield's ''The Passover Plot'' and Finkelstein & Silberman's ''The Bible Unearthed'' ought also to be studied, as should any number of reputable works on the Dead Sea Scrolls (mainly for the contextual light that they throw on the subject). All of them throw light - however unwelcome - on the subject. More to the point, the Bible itself should be read - and not just the bits of it that happen to fit our particular thesis. Fact should not be regarded as 'criticism': if it's truly fact, it's purely dispassionate.

:::As for 'emphirical evidence' on what other books 'could have wrote', perhaps you should take a look at Shakespeare, or Nostradamus, or the Egyptian Book of the Dead, or anything of the kind. Such questions always arise where people attach inordinate importance to the exact words of ancient texts (perhaps you should read more of them?), and not merely in the case of the Bible - though, obviously, the more this is rammed down people's throats, the more likely they are to want to look at it critically. Can you blame them? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:13, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Karajou, why do you assume I'm ignorant of Christian apologetics? I was raised in an evangelical church -- when I began to question many things that only received dogmatic answers I began to realise just how vapid that which they were trying to ram down my throat was. Since that time I have read score of books on ''all'' religions, and the more religions I've studied, the more I've seen the truth behind them -- the emperor is naked.
:What is this hearsay of which you speak? Please, do elaborate rather than throwing cute terms around.
:Now, when are you going to fix ''la'' to ''ta''? Hey, if you want Con-pedia to be the laughing-stock of religion, feel free to leave it, but be aware that ''la'' is not a definite article either in Greek or Latin (a language bereft of a definite aticle). BTW, I would doubt Unger misheard the word -- ''if'' he knew Greek, he would have known the definite article off of the top of his head, and if he knew it not he was no ''true'' scholar of the NT. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:51, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
:One other point: books on the Civil War, Babe Ruth, etc., have never been claimed to be infallible, so your analogy does not pass muster. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:54, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Bible

2007-04-10T21:52:16Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* Name */

{{protect|MountainDew}}

== Either un-protect or fix the Name section ==
This is a disgrace. Whoever has protected this article, fix the Name section immediately.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 01:08, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:name section fixed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:04, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

That's odd. I don't remember seeing that when I protected the article. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==Article is too brief!==
This is '''The Bible!''' Don't you think the Word of God deserves a greater article, one with more detail on the subject and its history? I think so! In fact, I think I will start out by doing just that, and here's the proposed layout:

*Intro
*Brief listing of the books within, divided of course into Old/New Testaments.
*History of the Bible...as in '''who wrote it'''.
*Why the world accepts/rejects it.
*Current status
*Include pics and charts and links.

What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:28, 11 March 2007 (EST)

== Why describe it when we can transcribe it? ==

Sounds good to me. But why not PUT the whole Bible on here? It gets quoted often enough.

:Well, the Bible is rather large. I think that the Bible as a whole work can be treated the right way here, with possibly separate articles covering each book, where greater detail is needed.

:I also uploaded a lead-in photograph, but am having trouble with it for the article. Can you help? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:43, 11 March 2007 (EST)

The links I mentioned can be two-fold: a link to online Bible sites where complete versions have been transcribed and posted; and links to Bible software which can be downloaded and run off computers. I happen to have E-Sword, which is very good [www.e-sword.net]. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:46, 11 March 2007 (EST)

==What happened so far==
I took the layout to the next step, which is subsections on both Testaments. The Old Testament has been written with emphasis on its Hebrew origins (Torah, Tanakh, etc), which I feel is a good description anyway, and does not detract from the Christian Bible with the exception of the actual arrangement of the books. I would like to see the Hebrew titles of these books in its own written language, but that may take a bit of editing the actual structure of Conservapedia to accept it.

The Apocrypha, if necessary, can have it's own subheading, but ''after'' the others as listed.

The History subsection can be written as either a history of the whole Bible, or divided into separate periods, as in history of the Torah; the Septuagint; the early Gospels, etc.

Since this is an article about the Bible, it should be restricted specifically to the Bible as a whole and its history. Other topics related to it, such as persecutions of Bible believers, divine creation as in Genesis, individual books, etc, should have their own articles. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==Is Conservapedia just a redacted Wikipedia?==

Somewhere around 80% of this article is a straight reproduction of the Wikipedia Bible article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible] with many of the less conservative points omitted. It seems that either a citation or a rewrite is in order. --[[User:Timothyo|Timothyo]] 21:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Rewrite, definately...what is there should suffice as a structure guide temporarily. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Two things that bug me about this. First and foremost, Wikipedia has a rule on it which states articles there fall under the GPFL thing, and they state specifically that all articles are free from copyright, to use, edit, misuse, whatever. So, if any content here is from Wikipedia, one can say "oh well" and leave it at that.

:Not quite... see my remarks below. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

But that led to some thinking here, and I wanted to see if the original writer(s) of this article had violated copyrights when they posted the material for the first time. I have here at home a book titled "Unger's Bible Dictionary" copyright 1966 by the Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, and the article within titled "Bible" has a number of elements that simply dovetail with the Wikipedia article. Which means there will be a re-write here so that there is no question. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:53, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, list the omitted conservative points you mentioned. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:55, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:The GDFL allows reuse only if the original authors are credited, and the article in which the material is reused is itself released under the GDFL, IIRC. So reuse of Wikipedia content is definitely not allowed here. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::When I posted that very question, it was never answered until now. Tolerate the material in question here for no more than a week, and only then for it's use as a template for something better. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::1) Aschafly has been pretty clear that he, at least, wants Conservapedia articles to be original, and not copies of anything, redacted or not.

:::2) Wikipedia is perfectly happy with the idea of building a "Wikipedia fork," that is a modified copy of Wikipedia. But. There are serious complications with this, due to the GFDL license (which is not easy for anyone to understand, apparently including Wikipedia).

:::3) The big GFDL issue, and the one that I sense Conservapedia will not agree to, is that if you copy and modify a Wikipedia article, you have to make the copy available under GFDL, too. This means a significant loss of control. For example, following the GFDL rules, if Conservapedia took a bunch of Wikipedia articles and rewrote them, and if a liberal cherrypicked the rewritten articles for the funniest examples of ludicrous over-the-top spin... including, of course, vandal edits... and published it in book form as "The Conservapedia Jokebook," I don't think Conservapedia could stop it. (Disclaimer 1: I'm not a lawyer. Disclaimer 2: I don't think ordinary lawyers understand intellectual property law. Disclaimer 3: I'm not so sure intellectual property lawyers understand intellectual property law.).

:::4) Another issue with the GFDL is that anything published under the GFDL must "preserve the history," whatever that means. If someone starts a new article at Wikipedia in 2003, and there are a thousand edits to it, and in 2007 you copy it, rework it, and republish it on Conservapedia, there is supposed to be some way for readers of the Conservapedia article to retrace all those steps if they want to. Nobody seems to be completely sure how to do this, or what does and doesn't really comply with the GFDL, which wasn't really designed to cover anything like Wikipedia. (Somewhere Wikipedia makes a qualified suggestion that ''possibly'' a simple link to the version of the WIkipedia article that served as the jumping-off point ''might'' do). So, Wikipedia encourages re-use, and there are in fact numerous commercial "mirrors" that duplicate Wikipedia content, but Wikipedia does not give any nice clear recipe on exactly how to go about producing a censored or redacted or reworked derivative of Wikipedia. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

It will be as original as possible. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Instead of waiting...==
Did a re-write of the article and removed the content in question. What remains is 1) that which is common to every work about the Bible, whether it's here, or Wikipedia, or Britannica, or many other works; and 2) the references section...Wikipedia most certainly cannot copyright a list of external sources.

But double-check what is there, and let me know what can be changed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Remaining subheadings to add==
Just added "Name" and "References" subheadings. Need to add an over-all history of the Bible, and add a subheading for the various versions in print...possibly with brief histories of each? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Separate articles==
Clicked on [[Genesis]], and got redirected back to the Bible page. Not right. Every book in the Bible should have its own detailed article page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==History of the Bible subheading==
For this, I have a rough layout:
*From the time it was first written down, under Moses, to the last OT book.
*the style of the writing, i.e. by hand and on what.
*Between the Testaments, as in the Septuagint.
*The New Testament
*the early versions of the Bible until the printing press
*Gutenburg and versions up to the KJV
*very brief listing of versions since, including internet impact.
Any other suggestions would be helpful. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:59, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Pictures==
I need two more pics to illustrate this. The first is a pic of a Torah scroll, and what I want to see are people near it with reverence. The second are good copies of New Testament fragments or pages which were hand-written. And of course, they need to be in the public domain, conforming to the rules, etc... [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:50, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==As it stands now==
Although the "History" part of it is not done at this time, the article itself should be written as a straight-up article about the Bible, with none of the allegations, questions, etc. that scholars and historians have made over the years against it. My reasons for it are two:
*Such allegations have been proven wrong time and time again, so why even bother to repeat them here?
*If such allegations need to be written down, then they need a separate article for each where they can be detailed as to points made, reasons why, who postulated them, and all evidence refutting them.
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:14, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Done==
This article is done. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:49, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Very '''very''' nice work there [[User:Karajou|Karajou]]!! Kudos! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 16:09, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::I hate kudos...but peanut M&M's is a nice stand-in! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:30, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Careful! Under 'Name', Greek ''biblos'' did ''not'' mean 'book' . It meant 'papyrus'. You are correct, though, in saying that the ''direct'' source was Greek ''biblia'', 'books' - i.e. the various canonical books of which it was composed. Also, under 'History of the Bible', you would do well to consult the most recent research of on-the-spot archeologists such as Finkelstein and Silberman before being ''too'' sure about the authorship and dating of the earliest books of the Bible! Some caution is also advisable about suggesting that the author of Matthew (whether or not that was his real name -- he doesn't claim that it was) was a direct disciple of Jesus. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== ...sources? ==

Considering how long the article is (I'm certainly impressed!), I find it odd that the entire thing just has five external links inside the article. I'm ''totally'' not going to plaster "fact" tags through the entire thing, but I think that an article with so much information could use a few more sources. Doesn't have to be right now, but more as a general remark. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:32, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, the order is for originality, which is what is here for the most part...but whether incorporated into the text or not, the article could benefit from additional sources. There are extensive links at the bottom of the article for internet info, but what I want are books from at least 50 years or more ago to include in the reference section. The article itself, which is laid out to be just ''about'' the Bible and a brief on its history, should remain the same without any of the controversial stuff others think has to be included...that is a subject for separate articles. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:39, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::Mh, yes, agreed. Tangential topics should get their own articles, possibly with "See also" links at the bottom if they're closely connected to this article. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Oh yes...if there's an article about, say Biblical criticism, then there will be a link here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:59, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The trouble is that, all the while this and other articles are locked, nobody else can insert the relevant links. It's self-defeating! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:13, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==E-Sword pic==
For the record, the image of the E-Sword screenshot is copyrighted, and used here with permission as per the summary. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Authorship of Hebrews?==

Hebrews' author has been disputed for thousands of years - it seems questionable to me to list it as a Pauline epistle without any sort of note that Paul is not its verified author. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 12:02, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

note from stanley d'cunha sdcunha@crescent.ae
i agree with daniel b douglas. the author should have at least parenthetically mentioned that the authorship of letter to the hebrews is not 100 percent by paul --stan, march 18, 2007

:I agree with you; authorship of Hebrews is disputed, but it does lean toward Paul. The point here for this article is a straight history of the Bible as I outlined above, with no sidetracking. The thing you indicated should be put in, but as a subject topic for either the article on Hebrews, or a separate article altogether. If you're willing to take up the task, write what Hebrews is all about, it's history, etc, then write the authorship; what current and past scholars said about it.

:The thing is, because the subject is the Bible, ''every thing written here about the Bible and each book is going to respect Christians and Jews''. As it was said in the Commandments page, this is a family site, and a lot of families hold the Bible as precious. We are going to respect that. Right now I am re-doing the article on [[Genesis]] because the original editor decided not to do it in a respectful way. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:30, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Translations==
At present the article rather gives the impression that all translations are equally valid. In fact, few are as literal - but, at the same time, as generally incomprehensible and occasionally as inaccurate - as the King James Version. It might therefore be worth suggesting this - with caveats - as a basic reference. On the other hand, there are other versions, such as the NIV, which deliberately skew certain words (as, for example, in Genesis 2 and Exodus 20) to fit Christian, and especially fundamentalist dogma. Readers need to be warned of this. Thus, a section needs to be added on translations, suggesting that all assertions regarding what the Bible says need to be checked with at least two translations, one of them being the KJV. The ''Blue Letter Bible'' deserves a mention in this connection, too. However, I see that the rest of us aren't allowed to add such ideas! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I closed it to protect the site from vandalism, and the vandalism was constant. I also wanted just a basic overview of the Bible and its history, but since there are so many versions, adding each one and the related controversy would be ''overkill'' for the article itself, which is what I want to avoid. This includes the subheadings on selected individual versions...just the basics was all that was needed here. So, two things:
*If it is necessary to add something to the article, just post a brief here, and I will open up the article for its inclusion...then all you have to do is to write it in and write it well.
*If the info in question is too long, and has the pro/con stuff, do a separate article on the subject, and I will get a "see also" subheading added. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:46, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks. Why don't I, as a professional translator, just write it here? You can then assess and edit it before including it yourself if you wish, without risk of vandals butting in (though it would be nice to consult me before altering it)!...

:::(Title) '''Bible translations'''
:::When quoting passages from the Bible in Conservapedia, it is important to remember that the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew (apart from a few sections in Aramaic), and the New Testament in Greek. English versions of these often come at second-hand, are rarely completely accurate, and can never be regarded (any more than can any translation of any document whatever) as ''the'' translation. However, some general guidelines are appropriate here:

:::1. Always refer to at least one 'literal' translation, such as the King James Version. This may be old-fashioned, and is occasionally incompetent, but at least it attempts to render every word of the original, and indicates in italics any conjectural forms. It has other advantages for reference-purposes, too (see below).

:::2. In choosing your secondary source, compare it carefully with the KJV to see whether any words have been 'skewed' to fit modern Christian preconceptions. Neither the NIV nor the ''New Jerusalem Bible'', with their particular religious affiliations, are entirely guiltless in this regard. The ''New English Bible'', while extremely readable and innocent of this particular problem, can occasionally be over-free. Up to 50 other versions can be compared verse-for-verse here [http://www.biblegateway.com/], whereupon the 'mavericks' will usually be found to stand out clearly. Bear in mind, though, that most recent translations are copyright.

:::3. A further useful reference is the ''Blue Letter Bible'', which may be found here [http://www.blueletterbible.org/], and which presents and analyses the original Hebrew, Aramaic and/or Greek versions alongside the KJV text.

:::4. Finally, reference to a good Concordance such as Young's ''Analytical Concordance to the Bible'' or Cruden's ''Complete Concordance to the Old and New Testaments'' can help to tie down the true meanings of the original texts: these, too, are based on the KJV text - a fact which renders point 1. above doubly important.

:::''And always remember, even then, that any words you may quote in English here are '''not''' the original words!''

::[OK, try that for size!] --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:18, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I think that calls for a separate article. I do agree with you that over the years men have distorted the Bible's original meaning and words; for example, in the New Testament Jesus is refered to by the title of "cornerstone", which is the first, most important block of the foundation of a building. The NIV changes that to "capstone", which is ''the last'' block added to a building...and it's not right to do everything first and maybe add Jesus last, when it should be the other way around.

'''Differences Between Bible Versions''' might make a good title, with it written in parallel fashion, say the KJV on the left, the NIV on the right, with differences highlighted and reasons for the changes. A great amount of detail can go into it. What do you think? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:31, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, the Hebrew means ''either'' 'cornerstone' ''or'' 'capstone' - though it's difficult to see how you can have a ''chief'' cornerstone. I suspect the imagery is meant to be more like that on the back of the dollar bill - whence, perhaps, the imagery on the back of the dollar bill!

::Yes, '''Differences Between Bible Versions''' looks good to me (as long as ''you'' do it and mention the main points above, especially the last one!), and the NIV would provide some much-needed comparisons (or rather, contrasts)! You can take your examples directly from the admitted rant at [http://www.av1611.org/niv.html]. You'd need to be careful about coypright, though. I imagine the NIV is still in copyright, in which case you'd need permission for any extensive quoting. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Note: I TIMOTHY 3:16 in the original Greek does not say God. There is a use of Kai (and) that ''might'' carry the God reference from I TIMOTHY 3:15, but that's debateable. The key word is "estin" -- he is, he becomes. (BTW, the Vulgate follows the same format as the Greek). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Note: in PHILIPPIANS 2:6 "consider" is in the Vulgate (arbitratus): the Greek has egesato, from agazomai, from agamai which can mean either admire or envy. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Note: In the original Greek, the text of LUKE 2:33 is pater autou (his father), Joe ain't mentioned. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yet another note: COLOSSIANS 1:14 does not mention blood in the original Greek. The NIV is actually more accurate. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:59, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Again, re Mark 1:2,3 -- the KJV edited the text to fix the error. The original Greek is en to esaia to prophete (in (the) Isaiah the prophet). Not "in the Prophets". Ditto for the Vulgate, in Esaia propheta. The KJV is inaccurate in it's translation, apparently in an attempt to fix an error by the author of Mark. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 09:11, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:I would suggest also looking into ''The Five Books of Moses'', by Robert Alter, [http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780393019551&itm=1], as it shows the flaws in all well-known translations, not just the KJV, but the LXX and Vulgate as well.
:Personal comment (as the second professional translator on this page): Of special note is that whole "in the beginning" bit shows more about the thought patterns of the Greeks and Romans with their insertion of ''en arche'' (why no Greek font?) and ''in principio'' than it does anything else -- "In the beginning" does not exist in the Hebrew. In fact, much of the OT as defined in the Septuagint and Vulgate, and by extension the KJV, is that way, and the NT was clearly aimed at the Greeks.
:Finally, the translations from the Hebrew have reflected an attempt to translate based on newer iterations of Hebrew, and often miss the nuances of the original Hebrew text. For example, the "without form, and void" is semantically incorrect, the better translation is "welter and waste". There are nuances missed in the KJV, and the Vulgate's "inanis et vacua" is no better at catching the nuances. The Greek "aoratos kai akataskeuastos" (aargh, where is the greek font?!?), misses the nuance in the same exact way. Why? Because while there is a myth that the Vulgate and KJV were translated from the original Hebrew, they are actually faithful translations of the Septuagint, as is obvious to anyone familiar with forensic linguistics. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 15:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::The KJV as it is right now is based on the last English language update it had (1727).

::When the scholars did the KJV back in the early 1600s, they did consult and use other existing versions as guides, the Septuagint and the Vulgate being two. But their main guides were the Masoretic Text as used by the Jews, and the best Greek translations then current, as well as the best ancient Greek manuscripts they knew existed for the New Testament. For that particular time frame, they knew what they were doing. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Of course, the Masoretic texts being compiled 1000 to 1700 years after the original text, and Hebrew being a language like all other living languages, that is to say a changing one, the Hebrew of the original is substantially different (think Modern English vs the Old English of Beowulf). Nonetheless, given that he same exact mistakes are found in the KJV, the LXX and the Vulgate, it is clear that the LXX and Vulgate were used as more than mere guides.
:Given that the NT was written in Greek (Koine to be exact), I'm not sure what your point is re "best ancient Greek manuscripts they knew existed for the New Testament". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 05:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

With respect, I do not believe in the statements doubting authorship of the Bible by anyone other than the Biblical writers of tradition. But, and I do want to make this clear to everyone, what NousEpirrhytos has written is still part of the Bible's history, albeit a critical view (and he did do a lot of groundwork by the way), and as such I think a separte article concerning textual criticism of the Bible is warranted. According to rules set down by Conservapedia, there must be a point and counterpoint, i.e. a clear concise and authoritative rebuttal to a clear and concise critical view. What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think that might be served, in part, precisely by the two-column arrangement you were suggesting earlier - KJV against NIV, whose manifest corruptions you can easily collect from the web-rant mentioned earlier. On the other hand, it might be more positively productive to add a third column on the right representing a reasonable modern compromise - NAS, perhaps, culled from Bible Gateway. If there's only room for two, though, I think, on reflection, that I would vote for KJV alongisde NAS. Take care with the title, BTW. The word 'Bible' needs to come first, or people aren't going to find the article. How about 'Bible versions compared'? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:32, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::We might not be able to use the NAS, as it is copyrighted by the Lockman Foundation. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm sure there's a way to handle this...however, the issue of the translations' relative accuracy might lead to original research (as in my "Notes" above). Most critical discussions of translations are new enough to be copyrighted, so probably not useable, and not everyone can read Greek or Latin, so including these older texts might be problematic. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Why not ask Lockman? You're entitled to quote up to 200 words or so with due acknowledgement without permission anyway as 'fair use'. They might be happy to let you use more for nothing if you point out that it's by way of criticism and review, and recommending them as a modern source. Otherwise choose another reasonable, modern one? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Portal ==

Please add <nowiki>[[Category:Book of Worship]]</nowiki> as a Bible category.--[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 14:30, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:Can do! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Truth redirect==
Why is [[Truth]] redirected here?

==Name==
Once again, take care! Greek ''biblos'' doesn't mean 'book' (it's 'papyrus'), and ''la Biblia'' isn't Latin (though ''biblia'' is)! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:22, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
:Found the source...''biblos'' does mean ''book''...but before that it came from ''byblos'', meaning papyrus. ''biblos'' in turn led to the Latin word ''biblia'', and the word ''bible'' came to us from that via the French. The line shall be updated. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:09, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
::The original meaning of biblos is indeed papyrus, scroll, paper. The usage of the word to mean book occurs a bit later in Koine, although biblion (little book) was more common. Biblia is from the plural of biblion, and comes from the original title of the Greek version of the bible, ta biblia ta hagia -- τὰ βιβλία τὰ ἅγια -- meaning "the holy books"
::BTW, the word was ''never'' Byblos -- that was the name of a Phonoecian city that produced papyri, biblos was then derived from the town name with an iota replacing the upsilon. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:29, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I just noticed this: ''...Greek Christians had called the Scriptures la Biblia...'' -- la is '''not''' a definite article in Greek, it only accurs in Romance languages as a shortening of the demonstative article ''illa''. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 16:43, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Absolutely. Hence my original remark. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, I know -- but it went over like a flock of seagulls...the shame!
:::BTW Karajou, change la to ta and keep in mind that biblia is plural. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 06:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

The source of information I used came from Dr. Merril F. Unger, a leading theologian/Biblical historian in the first half of the 20th century. If your material is more accurate, please use it here and update the line in question...and if you can use the actual Greek letters like you did here, that would be better! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:57, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Are you sure you didn't just mistype the info from Unger? (It's also possible that the typesetter messed up -- I've yet to see a book that didn't have at least one typesetting error). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 05:43, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:For reference of τὰ βιβλία τὰ ἅγια see [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Bible dictionary.com]. For future reference of the Greek definite article see [http://www.monachos.net/greek/8_definite_articles.shtml here] [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 05:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::As far as Unger having a typo, I'm going to concede your point slightly in that Unger could have been told ''ta Biblia'', but he may have heard it as ''la Biblia''...people do that sometimes, and I'm just as guilty of it as anyone else.

::Just so you know, when it comes to people critical of the Bible, and I'm telling you this from books on the subject, they are always questioning or criticizing the writing; it's either too young or too many mistakes or they could have wrote in the wrong word or they had a typesetting error. And it's always about the Bible. It's never about the Civil War; it's never about Babe Ruth; it's never about what anyone else wrote on any subject under the sun...it's always the Bible that has those mistakes. Every single time. And right now, I strongly feel that you are doing the same thing. But it doesn't say you're a bad person.

::So, what I would like for you to do is to go to a Christian book outlet and purchase anything by author Josh McDowell, especially ''Evidence That Demands a Verdict''. I appreciate the fact that you have extensive knowledge concerning languages, and you are willing to educate yourself more in that field. But you also need to educate yourself in the history of the Bible, and not from a critical point of view, hence McDowell. Like you, I want the correct information on this page, but as someone who was trained and qualified in law enforcement, I know the difference between emphirical evidence and hearsay; and I cannot and will not accept hearsay in any article I write. If it won't stand up in a court room, it won't stand up here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::If it's from a Christian bookshop, it goes without saying that ''Evidence That Demands a Verdict'' is biased towards standard (or perhaps not-so-standard) Christian readings of the scriptures - which Jews (whose scriptures the Old Testament is) are of course constantly amazed at - rather than being a purely dispassionate, scholastic approach. So if we're talking about educating ourselves in the history of the Bible, then it's the history of the Bible that needs to be studied, and not merely what we ''would like'' the history of the Bible to have been. Thus (for example) Schonfield's ''The Passover Plot'' and Finkelstein & Silberman's ''The Bible Unearthed'' ought also to be studied, as should any number of reputable works on the Dead Sea Scrolls (mainly for the contextual light that they throw on the subject). All of them throw light - however unwelcome - on the subject. More to the point, the Bible itself should be read - and not just the bits of it that happen to fit our particular thesis. Fact should not be regarded as 'criticism': if it's truly fact, it's purely dispassionate.

:::As for 'emphirical evidence' on what other books 'could have wrote', perhaps you should take a look at Shakespeare, or Nostradamus, or the Egyptian Book of the Dead, or anything of the kind. Such questions always arise where people attach inordinate importance to the exact words of ancient texts (perhaps you should read more of them?), and not merely in the case of the Bible - though, obviously, the more this is rammed down people's throats, the more likely they are to want to look at it critically. Can you blame them? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:13, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Karajou, why do you assume I'm ignorant of Christian apologetics? I was raised in an evangelical church -- when I began to question many things that only received dogmatic answers I began to realise just how vapid that which they were trying to ram down my throat was. Since that time I have read score of books on ''all'' religions, and the more religions I've studied, the more I've seen the truth behind them -- the emperor is naked.
:What is this hearsay of which you speak? Please, do elaborate rather than throwing cute terms around.
:Now, when are you going to fix ''la'' to ''ta''? Hey, if you want Con-pedia to be the laughing-stock of religion, feel free to leave it, but be aware that ''la'' is not a definite article either in Greek or Latin (a language bereft of a definite aticle). BTW, I would doubt Unger misheard the word -- ''if'' he knew Greek, he would have known the definite article off of the top of his head, and if he knew it not he was no ''true'' scholar of the NT. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:51, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Bible

2007-04-10T21:51:25Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* Name */

{{protect|MountainDew}}

== Either un-protect or fix the Name section ==
This is a disgrace. Whoever has protected this article, fix the Name section immediately.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 01:08, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:name section fixed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:04, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

That's odd. I don't remember seeing that when I protected the article. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==Article is too brief!==
This is '''The Bible!''' Don't you think the Word of God deserves a greater article, one with more detail on the subject and its history? I think so! In fact, I think I will start out by doing just that, and here's the proposed layout:

*Intro
*Brief listing of the books within, divided of course into Old/New Testaments.
*History of the Bible...as in '''who wrote it'''.
*Why the world accepts/rejects it.
*Current status
*Include pics and charts and links.

What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:28, 11 March 2007 (EST)

== Why describe it when we can transcribe it? ==

Sounds good to me. But why not PUT the whole Bible on here? It gets quoted often enough.

:Well, the Bible is rather large. I think that the Bible as a whole work can be treated the right way here, with possibly separate articles covering each book, where greater detail is needed.

:I also uploaded a lead-in photograph, but am having trouble with it for the article. Can you help? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:43, 11 March 2007 (EST)

The links I mentioned can be two-fold: a link to online Bible sites where complete versions have been transcribed and posted; and links to Bible software which can be downloaded and run off computers. I happen to have E-Sword, which is very good [www.e-sword.net]. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:46, 11 March 2007 (EST)

==What happened so far==
I took the layout to the next step, which is subsections on both Testaments. The Old Testament has been written with emphasis on its Hebrew origins (Torah, Tanakh, etc), which I feel is a good description anyway, and does not detract from the Christian Bible with the exception of the actual arrangement of the books. I would like to see the Hebrew titles of these books in its own written language, but that may take a bit of editing the actual structure of Conservapedia to accept it.

The Apocrypha, if necessary, can have it's own subheading, but ''after'' the others as listed.

The History subsection can be written as either a history of the whole Bible, or divided into separate periods, as in history of the Torah; the Septuagint; the early Gospels, etc.

Since this is an article about the Bible, it should be restricted specifically to the Bible as a whole and its history. Other topics related to it, such as persecutions of Bible believers, divine creation as in Genesis, individual books, etc, should have their own articles. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==Is Conservapedia just a redacted Wikipedia?==

Somewhere around 80% of this article is a straight reproduction of the Wikipedia Bible article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible] with many of the less conservative points omitted. It seems that either a citation or a rewrite is in order. --[[User:Timothyo|Timothyo]] 21:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Rewrite, definately...what is there should suffice as a structure guide temporarily. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Two things that bug me about this. First and foremost, Wikipedia has a rule on it which states articles there fall under the GPFL thing, and they state specifically that all articles are free from copyright, to use, edit, misuse, whatever. So, if any content here is from Wikipedia, one can say "oh well" and leave it at that.

:Not quite... see my remarks below. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

But that led to some thinking here, and I wanted to see if the original writer(s) of this article had violated copyrights when they posted the material for the first time. I have here at home a book titled "Unger's Bible Dictionary" copyright 1966 by the Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, and the article within titled "Bible" has a number of elements that simply dovetail with the Wikipedia article. Which means there will be a re-write here so that there is no question. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:53, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, list the omitted conservative points you mentioned. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:55, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:The GDFL allows reuse only if the original authors are credited, and the article in which the material is reused is itself released under the GDFL, IIRC. So reuse of Wikipedia content is definitely not allowed here. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::When I posted that very question, it was never answered until now. Tolerate the material in question here for no more than a week, and only then for it's use as a template for something better. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::1) Aschafly has been pretty clear that he, at least, wants Conservapedia articles to be original, and not copies of anything, redacted or not.

:::2) Wikipedia is perfectly happy with the idea of building a "Wikipedia fork," that is a modified copy of Wikipedia. But. There are serious complications with this, due to the GFDL license (which is not easy for anyone to understand, apparently including Wikipedia).

:::3) The big GFDL issue, and the one that I sense Conservapedia will not agree to, is that if you copy and modify a Wikipedia article, you have to make the copy available under GFDL, too. This means a significant loss of control. For example, following the GFDL rules, if Conservapedia took a bunch of Wikipedia articles and rewrote them, and if a liberal cherrypicked the rewritten articles for the funniest examples of ludicrous over-the-top spin... including, of course, vandal edits... and published it in book form as "The Conservapedia Jokebook," I don't think Conservapedia could stop it. (Disclaimer 1: I'm not a lawyer. Disclaimer 2: I don't think ordinary lawyers understand intellectual property law. Disclaimer 3: I'm not so sure intellectual property lawyers understand intellectual property law.).

:::4) Another issue with the GFDL is that anything published under the GFDL must "preserve the history," whatever that means. If someone starts a new article at Wikipedia in 2003, and there are a thousand edits to it, and in 2007 you copy it, rework it, and republish it on Conservapedia, there is supposed to be some way for readers of the Conservapedia article to retrace all those steps if they want to. Nobody seems to be completely sure how to do this, or what does and doesn't really comply with the GFDL, which wasn't really designed to cover anything like Wikipedia. (Somewhere Wikipedia makes a qualified suggestion that ''possibly'' a simple link to the version of the WIkipedia article that served as the jumping-off point ''might'' do). So, Wikipedia encourages re-use, and there are in fact numerous commercial "mirrors" that duplicate Wikipedia content, but Wikipedia does not give any nice clear recipe on exactly how to go about producing a censored or redacted or reworked derivative of Wikipedia. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

It will be as original as possible. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Instead of waiting...==
Did a re-write of the article and removed the content in question. What remains is 1) that which is common to every work about the Bible, whether it's here, or Wikipedia, or Britannica, or many other works; and 2) the references section...Wikipedia most certainly cannot copyright a list of external sources.

But double-check what is there, and let me know what can be changed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Remaining subheadings to add==
Just added "Name" and "References" subheadings. Need to add an over-all history of the Bible, and add a subheading for the various versions in print...possibly with brief histories of each? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Separate articles==
Clicked on [[Genesis]], and got redirected back to the Bible page. Not right. Every book in the Bible should have its own detailed article page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==History of the Bible subheading==
For this, I have a rough layout:
*From the time it was first written down, under Moses, to the last OT book.
*the style of the writing, i.e. by hand and on what.
*Between the Testaments, as in the Septuagint.
*The New Testament
*the early versions of the Bible until the printing press
*Gutenburg and versions up to the KJV
*very brief listing of versions since, including internet impact.
Any other suggestions would be helpful. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:59, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Pictures==
I need two more pics to illustrate this. The first is a pic of a Torah scroll, and what I want to see are people near it with reverence. The second are good copies of New Testament fragments or pages which were hand-written. And of course, they need to be in the public domain, conforming to the rules, etc... [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:50, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==As it stands now==
Although the "History" part of it is not done at this time, the article itself should be written as a straight-up article about the Bible, with none of the allegations, questions, etc. that scholars and historians have made over the years against it. My reasons for it are two:
*Such allegations have been proven wrong time and time again, so why even bother to repeat them here?
*If such allegations need to be written down, then they need a separate article for each where they can be detailed as to points made, reasons why, who postulated them, and all evidence refutting them.
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:14, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Done==
This article is done. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:49, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Very '''very''' nice work there [[User:Karajou|Karajou]]!! Kudos! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 16:09, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::I hate kudos...but peanut M&M's is a nice stand-in! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:30, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Careful! Under 'Name', Greek ''biblos'' did ''not'' mean 'book' . It meant 'papyrus'. You are correct, though, in saying that the ''direct'' source was Greek ''biblia'', 'books' - i.e. the various canonical books of which it was composed. Also, under 'History of the Bible', you would do well to consult the most recent research of on-the-spot archeologists such as Finkelstein and Silberman before being ''too'' sure about the authorship and dating of the earliest books of the Bible! Some caution is also advisable about suggesting that the author of Matthew (whether or not that was his real name -- he doesn't claim that it was) was a direct disciple of Jesus. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== ...sources? ==

Considering how long the article is (I'm certainly impressed!), I find it odd that the entire thing just has five external links inside the article. I'm ''totally'' not going to plaster "fact" tags through the entire thing, but I think that an article with so much information could use a few more sources. Doesn't have to be right now, but more as a general remark. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:32, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, the order is for originality, which is what is here for the most part...but whether incorporated into the text or not, the article could benefit from additional sources. There are extensive links at the bottom of the article for internet info, but what I want are books from at least 50 years or more ago to include in the reference section. The article itself, which is laid out to be just ''about'' the Bible and a brief on its history, should remain the same without any of the controversial stuff others think has to be included...that is a subject for separate articles. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:39, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::Mh, yes, agreed. Tangential topics should get their own articles, possibly with "See also" links at the bottom if they're closely connected to this article. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Oh yes...if there's an article about, say Biblical criticism, then there will be a link here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:59, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The trouble is that, all the while this and other articles are locked, nobody else can insert the relevant links. It's self-defeating! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:13, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==E-Sword pic==
For the record, the image of the E-Sword screenshot is copyrighted, and used here with permission as per the summary. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Authorship of Hebrews?==

Hebrews' author has been disputed for thousands of years - it seems questionable to me to list it as a Pauline epistle without any sort of note that Paul is not its verified author. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 12:02, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

note from stanley d'cunha sdcunha@crescent.ae
i agree with daniel b douglas. the author should have at least parenthetically mentioned that the authorship of letter to the hebrews is not 100 percent by paul --stan, march 18, 2007

:I agree with you; authorship of Hebrews is disputed, but it does lean toward Paul. The point here for this article is a straight history of the Bible as I outlined above, with no sidetracking. The thing you indicated should be put in, but as a subject topic for either the article on Hebrews, or a separate article altogether. If you're willing to take up the task, write what Hebrews is all about, it's history, etc, then write the authorship; what current and past scholars said about it.

:The thing is, because the subject is the Bible, ''every thing written here about the Bible and each book is going to respect Christians and Jews''. As it was said in the Commandments page, this is a family site, and a lot of families hold the Bible as precious. We are going to respect that. Right now I am re-doing the article on [[Genesis]] because the original editor decided not to do it in a respectful way. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:30, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Translations==
At present the article rather gives the impression that all translations are equally valid. In fact, few are as literal - but, at the same time, as generally incomprehensible and occasionally as inaccurate - as the King James Version. It might therefore be worth suggesting this - with caveats - as a basic reference. On the other hand, there are other versions, such as the NIV, which deliberately skew certain words (as, for example, in Genesis 2 and Exodus 20) to fit Christian, and especially fundamentalist dogma. Readers need to be warned of this. Thus, a section needs to be added on translations, suggesting that all assertions regarding what the Bible says need to be checked with at least two translations, one of them being the KJV. The ''Blue Letter Bible'' deserves a mention in this connection, too. However, I see that the rest of us aren't allowed to add such ideas! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I closed it to protect the site from vandalism, and the vandalism was constant. I also wanted just a basic overview of the Bible and its history, but since there are so many versions, adding each one and the related controversy would be ''overkill'' for the article itself, which is what I want to avoid. This includes the subheadings on selected individual versions...just the basics was all that was needed here. So, two things:
*If it is necessary to add something to the article, just post a brief here, and I will open up the article for its inclusion...then all you have to do is to write it in and write it well.
*If the info in question is too long, and has the pro/con stuff, do a separate article on the subject, and I will get a "see also" subheading added. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:46, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks. Why don't I, as a professional translator, just write it here? You can then assess and edit it before including it yourself if you wish, without risk of vandals butting in (though it would be nice to consult me before altering it)!...

:::(Title) '''Bible translations'''
:::When quoting passages from the Bible in Conservapedia, it is important to remember that the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew (apart from a few sections in Aramaic), and the New Testament in Greek. English versions of these often come at second-hand, are rarely completely accurate, and can never be regarded (any more than can any translation of any document whatever) as ''the'' translation. However, some general guidelines are appropriate here:

:::1. Always refer to at least one 'literal' translation, such as the King James Version. This may be old-fashioned, and is occasionally incompetent, but at least it attempts to render every word of the original, and indicates in italics any conjectural forms. It has other advantages for reference-purposes, too (see below).

:::2. In choosing your secondary source, compare it carefully with the KJV to see whether any words have been 'skewed' to fit modern Christian preconceptions. Neither the NIV nor the ''New Jerusalem Bible'', with their particular religious affiliations, are entirely guiltless in this regard. The ''New English Bible'', while extremely readable and innocent of this particular problem, can occasionally be over-free. Up to 50 other versions can be compared verse-for-verse here [http://www.biblegateway.com/], whereupon the 'mavericks' will usually be found to stand out clearly. Bear in mind, though, that most recent translations are copyright.

:::3. A further useful reference is the ''Blue Letter Bible'', which may be found here [http://www.blueletterbible.org/], and which presents and analyses the original Hebrew, Aramaic and/or Greek versions alongside the KJV text.

:::4. Finally, reference to a good Concordance such as Young's ''Analytical Concordance to the Bible'' or Cruden's ''Complete Concordance to the Old and New Testaments'' can help to tie down the true meanings of the original texts: these, too, are based on the KJV text - a fact which renders point 1. above doubly important.

:::''And always remember, even then, that any words you may quote in English here are '''not''' the original words!''

::[OK, try that for size!] --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:18, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I think that calls for a separate article. I do agree with you that over the years men have distorted the Bible's original meaning and words; for example, in the New Testament Jesus is refered to by the title of "cornerstone", which is the first, most important block of the foundation of a building. The NIV changes that to "capstone", which is ''the last'' block added to a building...and it's not right to do everything first and maybe add Jesus last, when it should be the other way around.

'''Differences Between Bible Versions''' might make a good title, with it written in parallel fashion, say the KJV on the left, the NIV on the right, with differences highlighted and reasons for the changes. A great amount of detail can go into it. What do you think? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:31, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, the Hebrew means ''either'' 'cornerstone' ''or'' 'capstone' - though it's difficult to see how you can have a ''chief'' cornerstone. I suspect the imagery is meant to be more like that on the back of the dollar bill - whence, perhaps, the imagery on the back of the dollar bill!

::Yes, '''Differences Between Bible Versions''' looks good to me (as long as ''you'' do it and mention the main points above, especially the last one!), and the NIV would provide some much-needed comparisons (or rather, contrasts)! You can take your examples directly from the admitted rant at [http://www.av1611.org/niv.html]. You'd need to be careful about coypright, though. I imagine the NIV is still in copyright, in which case you'd need permission for any extensive quoting. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Note: I TIMOTHY 3:16 in the original Greek does not say God. There is a use of Kai (and) that ''might'' carry the God reference from I TIMOTHY 3:15, but that's debateable. The key word is "estin" -- he is, he becomes. (BTW, the Vulgate follows the same format as the Greek). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Note: in PHILIPPIANS 2:6 "consider" is in the Vulgate (arbitratus): the Greek has egesato, from agazomai, from agamai which can mean either admire or envy. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Note: In the original Greek, the text of LUKE 2:33 is pater autou (his father), Joe ain't mentioned. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yet another note: COLOSSIANS 1:14 does not mention blood in the original Greek. The NIV is actually more accurate. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:59, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Again, re Mark 1:2,3 -- the KJV edited the text to fix the error. The original Greek is en to esaia to prophete (in (the) Isaiah the prophet). Not "in the Prophets". Ditto for the Vulgate, in Esaia propheta. The KJV is inaccurate in it's translation, apparently in an attempt to fix an error by the author of Mark. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 09:11, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:I would suggest also looking into ''The Five Books of Moses'', by Robert Alter, [http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780393019551&itm=1], as it shows the flaws in all well-known translations, not just the KJV, but the LXX and Vulgate as well.
:Personal comment (as the second professional translator on this page): Of special note is that whole "in the beginning" bit shows more about the thought patterns of the Greeks and Romans with their insertion of ''en arche'' (why no Greek font?) and ''in principio'' than it does anything else -- "In the beginning" does not exist in the Hebrew. In fact, much of the OT as defined in the Septuagint and Vulgate, and by extension the KJV, is that way, and the NT was clearly aimed at the Greeks.
:Finally, the translations from the Hebrew have reflected an attempt to translate based on newer iterations of Hebrew, and often miss the nuances of the original Hebrew text. For example, the "without form, and void" is semantically incorrect, the better translation is "welter and waste". There are nuances missed in the KJV, and the Vulgate's "inanis et vacua" is no better at catching the nuances. The Greek "aoratos kai akataskeuastos" (aargh, where is the greek font?!?), misses the nuance in the same exact way. Why? Because while there is a myth that the Vulgate and KJV were translated from the original Hebrew, they are actually faithful translations of the Septuagint, as is obvious to anyone familiar with forensic linguistics. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 15:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::The KJV as it is right now is based on the last English language update it had (1727).

::When the scholars did the KJV back in the early 1600s, they did consult and use other existing versions as guides, the Septuagint and the Vulgate being two. But their main guides were the Masoretic Text as used by the Jews, and the best Greek translations then current, as well as the best ancient Greek manuscripts they knew existed for the New Testament. For that particular time frame, they knew what they were doing. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Of course, the Masoretic texts being compiled 1000 to 1700 years after the original text, and Hebrew being a language like all other living languages, that is to say a changing one, the Hebrew of the original is substantially different (think Modern English vs the Old English of Beowulf). Nonetheless, given that he same exact mistakes are found in the KJV, the LXX and the Vulgate, it is clear that the LXX and Vulgate were used as more than mere guides.
:Given that the NT was written in Greek (Koine to be exact), I'm not sure what your point is re "best ancient Greek manuscripts they knew existed for the New Testament". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 05:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

With respect, I do not believe in the statements doubting authorship of the Bible by anyone other than the Biblical writers of tradition. But, and I do want to make this clear to everyone, what NousEpirrhytos has written is still part of the Bible's history, albeit a critical view (and he did do a lot of groundwork by the way), and as such I think a separte article concerning textual criticism of the Bible is warranted. According to rules set down by Conservapedia, there must be a point and counterpoint, i.e. a clear concise and authoritative rebuttal to a clear and concise critical view. What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think that might be served, in part, precisely by the two-column arrangement you were suggesting earlier - KJV against NIV, whose manifest corruptions you can easily collect from the web-rant mentioned earlier. On the other hand, it might be more positively productive to add a third column on the right representing a reasonable modern compromise - NAS, perhaps, culled from Bible Gateway. If there's only room for two, though, I think, on reflection, that I would vote for KJV alongisde NAS. Take care with the title, BTW. The word 'Bible' needs to come first, or people aren't going to find the article. How about 'Bible versions compared'? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:32, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::We might not be able to use the NAS, as it is copyrighted by the Lockman Foundation. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm sure there's a way to handle this...however, the issue of the translations' relative accuracy might lead to original research (as in my "Notes" above). Most critical discussions of translations are new enough to be copyrighted, so probably not useable, and not everyone can read Greek or Latin, so including these older texts might be problematic. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Why not ask Lockman? You're entitled to quote up to 200 words or so with due acknowledgement without permission anyway as 'fair use'. They might be happy to let you use more for nothing if you point out that it's by way of criticism and review, and recommending them as a modern source. Otherwise choose another reasonable, modern one? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Portal ==

Please add <nowiki>[[Category:Book of Worship]]</nowiki> as a Bible category.--[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 14:30, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:Can do! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Truth redirect==
Why is [[Truth]] redirected here?

==Name==
Once again, take care! Greek ''biblos'' doesn't mean 'book' (it's 'papyrus'), and ''la Biblia'' isn't Latin (though ''biblia'' is)! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:22, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
:Found the source...''biblos'' does mean ''book''...but before that it came from ''byblos'', meaning papyrus. ''biblos'' in turn led to the Latin word ''biblia'', and the word ''bible'' came to us from that via the French. The line shall be updated. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:09, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
::The original meaning of biblos is indeed papyrus, scroll, paper. The usage of the word to mean book occurs a bit later in Koine, although biblion (little book) was more common. Biblia is from the plural of biblion, and comes from the original title of the Greek version of the bible, ta biblia ta hagia -- τὰ βιβλία τὰ ἅγια -- meaning "the holy books"
::BTW, the word was ''never'' Byblos -- that was the name of a Phonoecian city that produced papyri, biblos was then derived from the town name with an iota replacing the upsilon. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:29, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I just noticed this: ''...Greek Christians had called the Scriptures la Biblia...'' -- la is '''not''' a definite article in Greek, it only accurs in Romance languages as a shortening of the demonstative article ''illa''. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 16:43, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Absolutely. Hence my original remark. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, I know -- but it went over like a flock of seagulls...the shame!
:::BTW Karajou, change la to ta and keep in mind that biblia is plural. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 06:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

The source of information I used came from Dr. Merril F. Unger, a leading theologian/Biblical historian in the first half of the 20th century. If your material is more accurate, please use it here and update the line in question...and if you can use the actual Greek letters like you did here, that would be better! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:57, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Are you sure you didn't just mistype the info from Unger? (It's also possible that the typesetter messed up -- I've yet to see a book that didn't have at least one typesetting error). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 05:43, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:For reference of τὰ βιβλία τὰ ἅγια see [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Bible dictionary.com]. For future reference of the Greek definite article see [http://www.monachos.net/greek/8_definite_articles.shtml here] [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 05:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::As far as Unger having a typo, I'm going to concede your point slightly in that Unger could have been told ''ta Biblia'', but he may have heard it as ''la Biblia''...people do that sometimes, and I'm just as guilty of it as anyone else.

::Just so you know, when it comes to people critical of the Bible, and I'm telling you this from books on the subject, they are always questioning or criticizing the writing; it's either too young or too many mistakes or they could have wrote in the wrong word or they had a typesetting error. And it's always about the Bible. It's never about the Civil War; it's never about Babe Ruth; it's never about what anyone else wrote on any subject under the sun...it's always the Bible that has those mistakes. Every single time. And right now, I strongly feel that you are doing the same thing. But it doesn't say you're a bad person.

::So, what I would like for you to do is to go to a Christian book outlet and purchase anything by author Josh McDowell, especially ''Evidence That Demands a Verdict''. I appreciate the fact that you have extensive knowledge concerning languages, and you are willing to educate yourself more in that field. But you also need to educate yourself in the history of the Bible, and not from a critical point of view, hence McDowell. Like you, I want the correct information on this page, but as someone who was trained and qualified in law enforcement, I know the difference between emphirical evidence and hearsay; and I cannot and will not accept hearsay in any article I write. If it won't stand up in a court room, it won't stand up here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::If it's from a Christian bookshop, it goes without saying that ''Evidence That Demands a Verdict'' is biased towards standard (or perhaps not-so-standard) Christian readings of the scriptures - which Jews (whose scriptures the Old Testament is) are of course constantly amazed at - rather than being a purely dispassionate, scholastic approach. So if we're talking about educating ourselves in the history of the Bible, then it's the history of the Bible that needs to be studied, and not merely what we ''would like'' the history of the Bible to have been. Thus (for example) Schonfield's ''The Passover Plot'' and Finkelstein & Silberman's ''The Bible Unearthed'' ought also to be studied, as should any number of reputable works on the Dead Sea Scrolls (mainly for the contextual light that they throw on the subject). All of them throw light - however unwelcome - on the subject. More to the point, the Bible itself should be read - and not just the bits of it that happen to fit our particular thesis. Fact should not be regarded as 'criticism': if it's truly fact, it's purely dispassionate.

:::As for 'emphirical evidence' on what other books 'could have wrote', perhaps you should take a look at Shakespeare, or Nostradamus, or the Egyptian Book of the Dead, or anything of the kind. Such questions always arise where people attach inordinate importance to the exact words of ancient texts (perhaps you should read more of them?), and not merely in the case of the Bible - though, obviously, the more this is rammed down people's throats, the more likely they are to want to look at it critically. Can you blame them? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:13, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Karajou, why do you assume I'm ignorant of Christian apologetics? I was raised in an evangelical church -- when I began to question many things that only received dogmatic answers I began to realise just how vapid that which they were trying to ram down my throat was. Since that time I have read score of books on ''all'' religions, and the more religions I've studied, the more I've seen the truth behind them -- the emperor is naked.
:What is this hearsay of which you speak? Please, do elaborate rather than throwing cute terms around.
:Now, when are you going to fix ''la'' to ''ta''? Hey, if you want Con-pedia to be the laughing-stock of religion, feel free to leave it, but be aware that ''la'' is not a definite article either in Greek or Latin (a language bereft of a definite aticle). BTW, I would doubt Unger misheard the word -- ''if'' he knew Greek, he would have known the definite article off of the top of his head. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:51, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Is the Bible Inerrant?

2007-04-10T09:56:40Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* What's this article trying to achieve? */

== Question on the "wise men" ==

The counter-objection to "Who visited Jesus in his crib?" says, "Ah, no - sorry! Merely 'where the young child was'!".

Is this meant as a retraction? If not, perhaps it means that you've missed the point of the objection. The point is that the magi ''didn't'' visit Jesus in the manger/crib/inn, despite all those nativity scenes showing otherwise.

Firstly, the text says that they visited him "in the house". Secondly, they presumably saw the star when he was born, but spent some time travelling to Bethlehem via Jerusalem, with Herod asking them about when they saw the star. Thirdly, presumably on the basis of their answer, Herod had all the boys up to two years old. Taken together, all these clues indicate that whilst the shepherds visited the new-born Jesus, the magi visited the toddler Jesus up to two years later.

Ergo, no contradiction.

By the way, it's good to see you remove a couple of "contradictions". Keep doing that and you'll eventually have to admit that there are none! :-)

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:31, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Keep going yourself, and you'll hang yourself eventually! ;0) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:35, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
::Why do we even have this list? It's all context switching!--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 12:46, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I don't understand what you mean by "context switching".
:::I'm sure from Petrus' point of view, this article (which he created as "Bible Contradictions") is intended to show that the Bible has mistakes, so cannot be infallible.
:::From my point of view, this article is/can-be useful to show (a) that many of the common bibliosceptic attacks on the Bible are just silly, and (b) the more legitimate criticisms do have answers.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:31, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Not sure about the 'context-switching'. Personally, I'm not referring to 'contexts', but merely listing texts that appear to contradict each other. If others insist on bringing in 'contexts' to justify their objections (which usually means 'interpretations'), good luck to them - but it will merely weaken their case. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:33, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::You miss the beauty of exegesis, Petre, one can make the bible say virtually anything. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:18, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:As certain people, with their constant recourse to exegetical twisters, should have realised by now! ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:35, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::No doubt. But I wonder if they've realised that in the process they've made the Bible say virtually nothing -- it all becomes a maddening din of pseudo-hosannahs, the rumblings of a schizophrenic god and apoplectic apocalypses. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 06:07, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Especially as ''Hosanna'' means, not 'Hooray', but 'Save us now' - so they can't have shouted ''Hosanna '''to'''...'' anyone! ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:31, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Why ==
Why is there discussion going on '''in''' the article? [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 12:48, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:The only reason one may need to resolve possible contradictions of the Bible is to shore-up the belief that it needs to be taken literally, whenever possible.
:If one allows for errors in the Bible then the whole makes more than the sum of the parts.[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 12:52, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, why have an "article" which is a debate? The debate (if we really need one) should be here and later put to the article.--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 12:55, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:It's a moot point. The article was never designed to be a discussion - merely a listing of points pro and con, which is perfectly legitimate IMO. Call it an 'interactive article' if you like - but I don't see why an article shouldn't be interactive in a 'live' encyclopedia. Rather that than the uneditable, monolithic, ''ex cathedra'' pronouncements elsewhere in Conservapedia!... --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::'''Rob Pommer''': Answering alleged contradictions is not to shore up belief, but to refute bibliosceptical attacks on the Bible: "''We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God...''" (2 Corinthians 10:5, NIV). I don't follow the logic of your second point about the sum of the parts.
:::'''Rob Pommer''' and''' bill m''': I'm not comfortable with the format. I think it should be in the form of the criticism (the alleged contradiction) and an objection to it. To have an objection to the objection, and an objection to the objection to the objection , does get rather silly.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:40, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, that's true. Let's try and keep it down to an objection and a possible counter-objection wherever possible. Leave the reader to decide on the merits of that. In any case, keep it brief, and don't drag in all kinds of external commentators to try and argue the case by flattening the opposition, other than by footnote-reference. You may have noticed that ''my'' sole references are to the texts themselves. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::You used the actual texts? How quaint. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:19, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== Poor Bible exegesis offered at this ==

I believe there is very poor [[Bible exegesis]] offered at this article. I put some sources at the beginning of the article in order to give readers an alternative.

Specifically, I offered these web resources:

http://www.tektonics.org/index2.html

http://www.inerrancy.org/

http://www.christian-thinktank.com

http://www.apologeticspress.org/allegeddiscrepancies/

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Conservative, perhaps you missed that two of those sites were already used in some of the objections. But thanks for adding the other two. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:43, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::But in that case shouldn't some skeptical sources be linked, too? In its original format, the article didn't cite ''any'' critical sources - for either side. In fact, in my view, that is much the best idea. Originally it didn't have anything to do with exegesis - merely with what the texts actually say. Citing exterior sources (other than the texts themselves) merely drags in a whole 'war of the commentators' that can only lead to just as much confusion and uncertainty as before. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:50, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes indeedy they should.
:::Still missing the beauty of exigesis, though eh? I mean, think of all the really neat things Nostradamus never said but really did per the use of a non-biblical form of exegesis. Think of all of the UFO mysteries that are cleared up in the same fashion. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==Not to be nit-picky but...==
The portion:
''*Can the Sun and Moon ever appear together in the sky at the same time?''

''Psalm 136:8-9 No. God created "The sun to rule by day...The moon and stars to rule by night."
Genesis 1:16: No. God created "two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night..."''

''Objection 2: The passages in Psalms and Genesis should be taken figuratively rather than literally and thus do not mean that the Moon is always visible at night, nor that it is never visible during the day.''

I'd advise caution here unless it is your intent TO bring up the "when do we '''know''' we're ''supposed'' to take the Bible literally and when to take it figuratively" argument.
Not really a point, just an observation.--[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 09:47, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:I suppose the real issue here is that one cannot claim infallibility when one ceases to be literal. Once one wanders of into the realm of allegory and uses figurative devices "truth" becomes subjective. In other words, the Bible is either the literal truth or it's allegory, but once you allow for the latter you can lay no claim to the former. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 06:02, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::So are you suggesting that if someone you were talking to on the telephone said that "it's raining cats and dogs here", you would have no idea whether or not that was literally true? Is it not the case that metaphor, parable, analogy, etc. can be recognised by the context and/or the language, and that it is therefore possible to take literally the parts that are meant to be taken literally whilst acknowledging the existence of non-literal parts? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Most people I know don't claim to be infallible. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:Philip, your argument falls apart for several reasons. Myk has pointed out one of them: if no claim of infallibility is made or implied, there is no reason to assume same. Another is that as many literalists purport that every word of the bible is the infallible word of God, they simply can't turn around and say, "oh, that part? that's just a story". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 05:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::I couldn't actually see the point of Myk's comment. Claiming or not claiming infallibility says nothing about whether or not something is metaphor, parable, etc.
::I think you've got the wrong idea about infallibility. Christians believe that the entire Bible is inspired by God and is therefore infallible, but that means that it infallibly records people doing the wrong thing, infallibly records the lies that people told, etc. It does ''not'' mean that every word is literally true and that literary devices such as metaphor and parable are not used.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:49, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Clarity in language is important. If something is claimed to be infallible, it best be awfully clear in its language. Go up to someone who has just learned how to speak English and tell them it's raining cats and dogs, see what kind of reaction you get. Further, in biblical times a rain of cats and dogs doesn't seem that implausible (see: Plague of Frogs).

:::Literal truth of the bible means just that. Literal, not metaphorical. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:52, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::That something claimed to be infallible should be clear is your opinion, not a requirement of infallibility.
:::::We are talking about infallibility, not literalism. Despite NousEpirrhytos' comment below, they are two distinct concepts. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Myk, I think we're arguing logic with the wrong person. BTW, Phil, generally speaking infallible, inerrant and literal are used interchangeably when used by fundamentalists and evangelicals.
::::Another BTW, Phil, do you claim to speak for all Christians? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 18:45, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::I disagree that "infallible" and "inerrant" are ''generally'' used interchangeably with "literal" when used by fundamentalists and evangelicals. Perhaps some uninformed Christians use them interchangeably, but they are clearly different things. I see bibliosceptics conflating them more than I see Christians conflating them. ("Infallible" and "inerrant" may be used interchangeably, as they are very close if not identical in meaning.)
:::::Of course I don't claim to speak for all Christians. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::You are of course free to your own opinion. Unfortunately as I have seen (in print) and heard Biblethumpers using the words interchangeably, I really can't agree with you.
::::But, y'know what cracks me up, your use of "bibliosceptics", a neologism that does not mean what you think it does (look up "bibliophile" and ye shall find understanding). In any case, you seem to think that treating the bible just like one would treat any other book is a bad thing -- in reality, in casting a critical eye on books one can gain much wisdom. Alas, I suppose you're content to settle for a belief in salvation, staying far away from the tree of knowledge (after all, you might find that some things you thought to be good are evil, and those you thought to be evil, good). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 18:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== What's this article trying to achieve? ==

Actually, I think the answer to that question, as far as the original editor is concerned, is obvious. It's to discredit the Bible as the infallible Word of God. My reason for having it (as I added to it) is to demonstrate that the alleged contradictions are not in fact contradictions.

But...

Is it the intention to list every "contradiction" ever ''claimed''? Because if it is, there is no way to achieve that without making the page ridiculously large. Perhaps it is to just show a few samples? But so far there's been no discussion about what sorts of alleged contradictions should be included.

And frankly, many of the allegations are plain silly. In fact I quoted someone saying that about one of the alleged contradictions, and Petrus [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Alleged_Bible_contradictions&diff=72033&oldid=72032 removed] the comment. Fair enough, it was supposed to be an answer to the allegation, not a commentary on the allegation, so I didn't restore it. But it needs to be said somewhere. Let's look at this one a bit closer, because it epitomises the problems with the list.

Two sayings (aka proverbs) that most would be familiar with are:
* Many hands make light work.
* Too many cooks spoil the broth.
Are these two sayings contradictory? Taken literally, then yes they are. But does anyone object to them on those grounds? Of course not. Despite them probably being coined by different people at different times, the validity of both is accepted, because neither claims to be always true and both have their place. Sometimes, more helpers ease the burden on others, but at other times too many people result in them getting in each other's way.

So what are we to make of a proverb in the Bible that says, 'Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes."? Is this seriously a contradiction, or like the saying above, are both sentences true in some cases?

To claim that they are contradictory, one must:
* Ignore the fact that they are ''sayings'', not truth-claims that have no exceptions, and read the text literally. Bibliosceptics love to criticise Creationists and fundamentalists for reading the Bible literally, despite them repeatedly saying that they only do this where it was ''meant'' literally, whilst still recognising metaphors, parables, etc. Yet here we have a bibliosceptic reading the text literally in order to make a claim of a contradiction.
* Presume that the original author was so incompetent that he would write two consecutive sentences contradicting each other, apparently without realising it.
* Further presume that many others who included the book of Proverbs in the canon, or who copied it over and over, or who write commentaries on it, are also so incompetent that they never noticed the "contradiction".
* Reject these sorts of explanations and maintain that it ''is'' a contradiction, with the astounding observation that the text doesn't say "this", meaning the answer given. Well the sayings above don't say that they are both true in different circumstances either, but that is something people are simply expected to understand.

Then we have the case of the number of stables that Solomon had. Christians who believe that the Bible is infallible do not believe that all human translations and copies are infallible, but that the original autographs were (although they do believe that the copies are very accurate copies). So if they ''occasionally'' answer that an apparent contradiction is a copyist error (as in the case of the number of stables), it does ''not'' follow that the Bible is therefore not infallible, except in the mind of the bibliosceptic who is doing his best to find all the contradictions he can, perhaps to bolster his own faith. Keep in mind that the answer to that "contradiction" included a link (and remember that Petrus doesn't want to include links) that explained all that. Neither does he want the sort of long explanations that including all that in the article would entail.

I'm not saying that all claimed contradictions are silly. Some claims of contradictions are fair enough, in that they really do ''appear'' to be contradictions, and deserve to be answered. The number of stables one is an example, but the article should state the apparent contradiction, provide the answer, and leave it at that.

In summary, many claimed contradictions in the Bible are nothing more than bibliosceptics grasping at straws and applying criteria that they wouldn't apply in any other situation, in order to try and prove their viewpoint that the Bible is fallible. I don't believe that this article should waste its time on those sorts of "contradictions".

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Hmmm....shall I take the time to point out all of the fallacies of the above? Part of me would like to write a long refutation, but the wiser part knows this to be fruitless. So, I'll just give one example:
:<nowiki>*</nowiki> Many hands make light work. <nowiki>*</nowiki> Too many cooks spoil the broth. You're assuming that the statements are equal but there is a quantitative difference: yes, many hands may make the work easier but at a certain point, the people begin tripping over each other and thus, as they actually impede the work, there is a point, the ''ne plus ultra'', that tips the balance from a comfy many to a disastrous too many. No contradiction. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 05:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Thank you for supporting my point! To quote Petrus' counter-objection to the very "contradiction" I was discussing here, "'''But the text does not actually say this.'''"
:: I figured it would probably be fruitless to convince you blokes too, but I tried anyway.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::While we're on the topic:
::::"He who hesitates is lost" / "Look before you leap"
::::"Cut your losses and let your profits run" / "Buy low, sell high."
::::"Absence makes the heart grow fonder" / "Out of sight, out of mind"
::::"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again." / "Don't beat a dead horse."
:::::19:45, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Excellent examples! - in fact there are few well-known proverbs that don't also have their opposites. But then that makes the point perfectly. No given 'pair' is likely to have been produced by the same person. Their very oppositeness suggests different hands with different views, ''not a single, monolithic author''.

And no, my purpose wasn't 'to discredit the Bible as the infallible Word of God' - merely to provoke people actually to look at the words (in some cases, apparently for the first time!) and decide for themselves whether that proposition is really tenable in the light of the facts. Thus, 'to discredit ''the dogma'' that the Bible is the infallible Word of God', possibly. But about the Bible I'm perfectly neutral. It's indubitably there, and it indubitably says what it says. I merely urge that people read it through clear glass, not stained glass. It's better for the eyes, you know!--[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:45, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:Yet you appear to be reading it through the eyes of a hyper-literalist, rather than as it was meant to be understood. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

How do you know how it is "meant" to be understood? How do you know, for instance, that Genesis 1 was meant to be understood literally? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 18:54, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

...other than by reading it through stained glass? Why can't the text simply be allowed to say what it says, warts and all, without imposing your own dogmas and preconceptions on it - such as the man-made myth of God-given infallibility? Isn't this perilously close to ''biblolatry'', in direct infringement of the spirit of the second commandment? Do you honestly think the Bible needs ''your'' protection from the light of reality, let alone that of all the commentators whom Conservative seems intent on importing into the argument? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:53, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:As noted above, it is best to read the bible in a literary manner, that is to say, the same way you'd read any other book. I've always been amused by folks who dismiss Odysseus tricking the cyclops to save his men as far-fetched mythology and yet cling to the almost parallel David v Goliath story. Both stories are allegorical myths, not litteral renderings of "history". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::You determine how something is meant to be understood by the language used (e.g., does it conform to the style of poetry, narrative, etc.?), and by the culture for whom it was written. If, for example, a sentence said "The rock landed on the marquee", would you understand it to mean that the rock landed on a large tent, or on a canopy projecting out over the entrance to a large building? The correct answer depends on whether the writer was writing for an Australian or British audience, or an American audience. You can also look at how others who would know how to read it understood it, if such records exist. For example, Jesus referred to various aspects of the Genesis narrative as though it was historical fact; He didn't understand it as allegorical myth. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:48, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Precisely. The Genesis narrative was written for (and by) a people living nearly three thousand years ago, and Jesus lived two thousand years ago. That cultural difference is the whole explanation of why the narrative doesn't say, 'The Earth was formed as a result of the agglomeration of cosmic dust some 4,500 million years ago', and why Jesus didn't understand it that way: none of the concepts involved was understood at the time. (Just as well that, as a healer, he had never heard of the symptomatology of schizophrenia!) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Jesus was the Creator, so he would know, and He endorsed what Genesis said. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Well, technically, the only thing we know is that second-hand accounts claimed that Jesus endorsed what Genesis said. We ain't got nothin' from Jesus himself. Jesus didn't write anything. --[[User:ReaganLives|ReaganLives]] 08:46, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::If you want to get technical about it, the ultimate author of the Bible was God, Jesus is God, ergo Jesus is the author of the Bible, so we do have it from Jesus Himself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::I think Jesus is inerrant, therefore he couldn't have written the Bible. Too many internal consistencies. Why don't you believe Jesus is inerrant? Are you a liberal? --[[User:ReaganLives|ReaganLives]] 12:55, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I suspect that what you've typed there is not what you meant to type, but as typed, it doesn't make sense. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:40, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:Or so it's reported in the Gospels.
:Also, if you read the bible in the cultural context, something that is part of any literary reading or scholarship, you'd understand why, for example, the creation stories are written as they are. They are attempts to explain the then unknowable "whence came we?", but from different perspectives, separated in time by about 160 years. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 09:11, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::I agree that it should be understood in its cultural context; that's effectively one of the things I've been saying. But I disagree that the cultural context is that of trying to explain the unknowable. If the Bible is correct, the "unknowable" was revealed by God, thus known. I don't understand the reference to 160 years. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:20, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Then, I would suggest you indulge your curiosity in some real Bible scholarship, rather than reading only those interpretations meant to make members of the evangelical community feel more secure in their ''argumenta ad ignoratium''. I can suggest two well-respected books, based on true interdisciplinary scholarship, if you wish.
:::BTW, what's with the edit summary "Jesus knew"? -- how would you (or anyone else for that matter) know what Jesus "knew". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 16:20, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the condescending remarks. As the Creator, Jesus obviously knew how creation occurred. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:43, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Unless, of course, he wasn't and didn't. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:14, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Vero, Petre. Interesting that Philip states religious dogma as fact. Note, Philip, that I did not use the theological title "Christ" (i.e., Jesus as God), but rather used his human name, thus referring to Jesus as a man. Thus, having clarified my question, I shall ask again: how would you (or anyone else for that matter) know what Jesus "knew". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:10, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: I was stating it in a matter-of-fact way because I was answering the question of how Jesus would know. That's how He would know, and in that context it was proper to put it in that way.
:::: I fail to grasp the distinction that you are making between Jesus as God and Jesus as man, therefore my answer stands. Are you suggesting that the man Jesus was totally oblivious to what He had done as God?
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::''Who said'' Jesus is God? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:58, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::The Bible does. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:39, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::But the Koran doesn't - and the Koran is the Word of God. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 10:54, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::So? You asked who does say it, and the Bible does say it, so the Koran ''not'' saying it doesn't change that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:37, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Further proof of the need to read. I'm talking about assuming Jesus to be just a man, not a god. Try to consider that possibility...it will not harm your faith and you might even learn something in the process. Also, why not try (if you haven't, already) reading the bible without relying on exegesis or the opinions of others, there again you might learn something.
:::Obviously, I have no ken of precisely what you know or think, but it seems, based on what you've written here, that your knowledge is limited to monolithic dogma and that you might think that those of us who see the bible as a book are bereft of biblical knowledge (in the true sense, not some cosmic exegetical sense). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 10:50, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Hey, if you want to get hypothetical and propose that Jesus was not God at all, then sure, he would not have known. But why not also hypothesise that Jesus didn't exist, or that the Bible was written by Shakespeare or something? The point is that I was answering a question about how I would know how Genesis was intended to be understood, and part of my answer was to rely on what Jesus understood it to mean. By "Jesus", I mean the bloke in the New Testament who was actually God and who was actually the Creator. That's what '''I''' meant by "Jesus". The response was to ask how Jesus would know if he ''wasn't'' God. Well sure, if He wasn't God, he wouldn't know, but I was answering the question according to my understanding of who Jesus was. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:49, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::On the basis of what evidence? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:55, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::The Bible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:39, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, this discussion has gone as far as it can. The illogic displayed by Philip is a clear indication that he is not willing to learn anything, and that his lithocephalic attachment to what he "believes" will neither allow him to learn nor to debate in a rational manner. Sad, really. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:59, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::So now you accuse me of being illogical without showing that I have been illogical. Nice. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:47, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::'The Bible' (a whole library of different books, most of which don't even mention Jesus at all) is not evidence, any more than 'the police department's computer' is evidence that Joe Bloggs burgled your house. Cite the precise evidence that Jesus is God, or stop making such absurd claims as that he was the Creator (which even most traditional Christians don't believe) - ideas which, as a faithful Jew, he cannot possibly have supported himself. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:51, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::I can't see the analogy between the Bible and the police computer, but why can't the police computer contain the evidence of a burglary?
::::::Are you unaware of the verses in the Bible that say that Jesus was the Creator? I can quote them if you want, but I suspect that you already know them and reject them for some reason.
::::::Why couldn't Jesus have supported that idea?
::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:49, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Additional topic for study for Phillip: Judaism. 12:53, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Thanks for the non-answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:40, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Oh, it's most definitely an answer. A bit cryptic perhaps, but surely someone gifted in exegesis should be able to pluck the meaning out of the chasm of calypsis. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 15:43, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::No, it's telling me in what topic of study I could find an answer, bit it's not an answer itself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:26, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Do you really think I'm going to continue in this vein? Yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is ... please, the bottom line is that you need to search out the answers on your own: as you seem to think that Petrus and I are clueless, there is little point in either of us explaining the answers to you. Seek and ye shall find! [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 05:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Petrus' comment of 05:51, 8 April 2007 (EDT) shows but one example of Philip's illogic. Another example would be this sentence, "But why not also hypothesise that Jesus didn't exist, or that the Bible was written by Shakespeare or something?" This is an absurd extrapolation that has no basis in what I said, and as such is an illogical response. Also Philip, while I'm sure you're unaware of this, you should know that for nearly two millenia there have been raging debates within the Chistian community regarding to what extent and where Jesus can use his "supernaural" powers. For example -- for the crucifxion to be a valid sacrifice leading to salvation, Jesus must be all man during that period. Also, early Christianity were beset with a variety of "heresies" (litteraly "schools of thought) that, had they been adopted, would have profoundly changed your current beliefs. See ''Donatism, Manichaeism, Gnosticism, Marcionism, Montanism'' and ''Docetism''. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 07:18, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::It is a rather large extrapolation, to make a point, but it's only an extrapolation, not an example of bad logic. Even if you are correct about Jesus needing to be all man (and I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing), how does that affect what I said? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:49, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I can't think of any convincing evidence from the Bible that Jesus thought he was God, let alone the Creator - so perhaps you'd better enlighten us? Simple references will do. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 10:54, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::I hope you mean that you can't think of any references, rather than you can't think of any "convincing evidence", else I'm probably wasting my time. But here are two (both are talking about Jesus):
{{QuoteBox|In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. (John 1:1-3, NIV)}}
{{QuoteBox|For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. (Colossians 1:16, NIV)}}

:(reduce indent)Equating Jesus with the nebulous "the Word" requires exegesis based on several bad assumptions. The actor (subject) in Colossians, in both the original Greek and the English, is unclear (likely intentionally), and the verses from 1:10 through 1:20 need to be considered in order for 1:16 to be read properly: it is '''not''' a standalone sentence, it is part of a series of subordinate clauses. Yanking biblical quotes out of context is one of the causes of poor understanding and is certainly poor scholarship. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 13:05, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::And yet you have not actually demonstrated that I used them out of context or inappropriately. Would Hebrews 1:1-2 (NIV) be more acceptable?{{quoteBox|In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.}} [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:40, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::There's also Mark: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."

:::::::As for Jesus himself, there's Matthew 16:13-17, {{QuoteBox|When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.}}
:::::::How do you parse this? It's not clear to me why Jesus consistently prefers to call himself the "Son of man," and the annotation in the Oxford Annotated Bible is rather vague: "''Son of man,'' a title which Jesus used of himself, probably seemed to his listeners to carry either of two meanings: (a) that Jesus called himself a typical human being... or (b) that Jesus ... linked himself to the prophesied figure of Dan.7.13-14... Jesus nowhere fully discloses his own understanding of the term." Still, in the above passage, it seems to me that after Peter calls Jesus "the Son of the living God," Jesus ''endorses this as valid divine revelation to Peter.'' That isn't Jesus calling himself the Son of God, but isn't it awfully close?
:::::::Still, this brings up something that bothers me. When people say "the Bible says," sometimes it means "the Bible says," but quite often it means "someone ''in'' the Bible says."
:::::::For example, "the Bible" indeed says "And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights."
:::::::But "the Bible" does not say "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you." Rather, the Bible says Moses says God said this.
:::::::The problem here is whether or not everybody quoted in the Bible has equal authority. Are we allowed to make such judgements, or not? Does the Bible say "For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing" and "a living dog is better than a dead lion?" If we're allowed to say, "no, that's not God, that's just Solomon," then why aren't we allowed to say about Romans 1:26-27, "no, that's not God, that's just Paul?" If everything in the Bible is of equal authority, then why do some Bibles print the words of Christ in red? If everything in the Bible is of equal authority, then why do so few Christians obey the kosher dietary laws? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:09, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::True, one must be careful to distinguish between what the Bible is teaching and what it is simply reporting. It does include reports of incorrect information by various people. But I believe that "the Bible says" is an acceptable way of describing your example about the creatures without fins and scales, given that it is quoting God. If it was quoting Satan, or an evil king, to mention two possibilities, then it would be quite misleading to say "the Bible says" in this case. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:40, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks for sharing that tautology -- "the bible says this, so it must be true" -- and I agree that it is very troubling when arguments of this sort are presented: validation based on an original source is hardly very compelling. Basic problem is that these are written after Paul had established that Jesus was the "anointed one" -- note that the Greek Khristos is applied to both Jesus and David (among others), and the "anointed one" in Judaism ''is'' a son of man who becomes king ( a la David). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:41, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::I'm not sure what you are referring to with the tautology reference, because nobody said those precise words. But if you are referring to me, I don't believe that I said anything that amounts to that. If you think otherwise, please quote or clearly point to the precise thing I did say. However, your quote, as it stands, is not actually a tautology anyway. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:40, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

1. 'Son of God' does ''not'' mean 'God'. All Israelites were 'sons of God' ''by definition''. That's why David claims the same title at Psalm 2:7 (at the same time making it clear that it's ''by adoption''), and why Jesus was able to teach his followers to pray 'Our Father...'

2. 'The Messiah, the Son of God' seems to have been a pre-existing title at the time (cf Schonfield): it referred to the 'Son of God' (i.e. the archetypal Israelite) who was to come - the particular 'son of man' (''bar enash'' or, in Hebrew, ''ben adam'', which ''still'' means 'man' even today) referred to by the book of Daniel.

4. In your quote from the beginning of John, the 'and the Word was God' bit should almost certainly read 'and the Word was divine'. Otherwise it simply doesn't make sense in terms of the previous sentence, let alone in terms of the familiar Pharisaic doctrine of the ''logos'' (i.e. the Adam Kadmon, or man-thought-in-the-mind-of-God) that is reflected not only in the text, but in the traditional Jewish wedding service ('last in creation, first in thought').

5. Not only does the Koran not say that Jesus was God, it specifically denies that Jesus was even his son (i.e. in the normal sense of the word). So, since the Koran claims repeatedly to be the word of God, whereas the Bible doesn't claim to be (it can't have done, since it didn't exist as a book for the claim to be made at the time when it was written), it's clearly the Koran that should be believed, if anything...

6. You have told us what Paul thought about it and what John thought about it, but I asked you what ''Jesus'' thought about it. So far, you haven't told us a single word about that. Why are you being so evasive? ''Please give us convincing evidence from the Bible that Jesus thought he was God (let alone 'the Creator')''. Just the simple references will do: no need to write a novel about it.

Oh - and if you ''must'' quote the passages concerned, please use a more reputable translation than the NIV! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:57, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, thank you, Petre. Paul's opinions are nice, and without them Paulism, er Christianity might never have gotten off the ground, but they are merely Paul's opinions. Phil, you need to do a bit more reading into the logos theory (among all the other reading you really should do).
:Phil, reread what Dpbsmith wrote, the problems to which he refered and perhaps you'll understand the point. Also, if English is the best you can do, pick a better source than the NIV. Of course, I have the advantage of being able to read Greek (the language of the NT), and as a linguist I know that no translation can capture precisely what was said in the other language (especially shades of meaning and double entendres), thus I am able to compare and contrast the sources and develop a fuller understanding of the text. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 06:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

----
I'm not continuing this discussion any more, as it has strayed far from the original topic yet the original points have mostly not been addressed. I'll give a few examples so that that is not just an unsubstantiated assertion.
* I noted that there has been no discussion of what sorts of alleged contradictions should be listed. There has still been no such discussion.
* I asked why a police computer could not contain evidence of a burglary. There was no reply to that question.
* I said that the Bible said that Jesus was the Creator. I was asked to supply evidence that Jesus thought He was the Creator. I supplied evidence that the Bible referred to Jesus as the Creator. This was dismissed because it didn't show ''that Jesus thought that''. But that is not what I claimed. I was actually asked to provide evidence to something I didn't claim, only to have my answer dismissed because it didn't meet the straw-man.
The discussion has also diverted into whether the Old Testament and the New Testament agree, which again is nothing to do with the issue I raised. All this discussion is taking time to answer, and it's time that I'm not prepared to spend any longer when the issues that I raised are not being addressed but are instead being used to launch into new criticisms.

See you all on other talk pages. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:01, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Protected debate page? ==

Whats the deal with the protected debate page? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:57, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:Conservative apparently went on a "Clean up unsourced statements" trip (blocked Hoji in the process for re-inserting things - who then unblocked himself because he's so awesome), not realizing that this is not in the Main space anymore. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:02, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::I then went to delete some other unsourced stuff. But, CPAdmin1 reverted it, and I have asked him why, because this is ridiculous to the Nth degree. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:05, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== This "namespace" is a joke. It claimed people to be scholars who weren't ==

Hoji wrote to me regarding [[Conservapedia:Alleged Bible contradictions]] the following: " It is a Conservapedia: namespace, is NOT AN ARTICLE, and does NOT need citations."

I can't think of anything more detrimental to Conservapedia than to be filled with "Namespaces" (whatever those are) because people can say just about any foolish thing without backing it up.

The "contradiction" page is a monstrosity claiming people to be "critical scholars" who have no real credentials ('''Unix systems engineer'''), etc.

What's with this whole "namespace" idea?

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:13, 5 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

: The namespace means its not a real article and lets people bicker back and foreth without the threat of getting banned. Citations are not needed (unless you presume to go clean up the other Conservapedia namespace articles that lack citations). What are your credentials anyways? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Especially where the introductory remarks merely refer to what ''generally'' happens - on ''both'' sides of the argument! One almost gets the impression that ''somebody'' is afraid to have both sides stated! Such paranoia is both unworthy and unnecessary. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:58, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: *sigh* Ask first, act then. It's not quantum physics. "Namespace" = a sort of container, filled with articles. All regular articles are in the "Main" namespace (for example, [[Theory of evolution]] is in the main namespace). Article Talk pages (like [[Talk:Theory of evolution]]) are in the "Talk" namespace. Same goes for pages in the "Help" namespace (all articles starting with "Help:...") or the "Conservapedia" namespace (like this "article").
:Articles in the "Conservapedia" namespace are NOT regular articles. All debates are in it, along with a few special pages about Conservapedia itself. This "article" was moved from the "Main" namespace to the "Conservapedia" namespace - most likely BECAUSE it's not a normal article and more of a debate.
:As you may have noticed, debates fall a bit out of the normal rules - not everything must be sourced (althouth it helps). Original research and argumentation is naturally a part of a debate, so it's completely counter-intuitive to suddenly "clean up" things - you're destroying a debate archive. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:24, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::This is a prime example of why, instead of reverting blindly without even understanding the Wiki model, you should consult other editors. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:32, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==unwinable battle==
Glad to see that section removed, as it was essentially a big "so what?" Crowing that "noted evangelical scholars" (a bit of an oxymoron) signed such and such petition supporting Bible inerrancy is as valueless as a petition signed by baseball player saying they support baseball. @@ [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:22, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

=="Contradictions need to be proved"==
Looks like a long paragraph of someone's personal opinion. Is there a source somewhere that defines what a "Biblical contradiction" is? A generally accepted rulebook that says whom the "onus" is upon and so forth? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:A biblical contradiction is the same as any other contradictions, and contradictions are generally the responsibility of the speaker/writer or his/her representatives to clear up. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 16:38, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== I do not understand this argument. ==

Could someone please explain to me how anyone in their right mind could think this is a sensible argument to have? The collection of works called the bible was written over thousands of years by a load of different guys in various languages, with different agendas, different points of view, and using their limited understanding of the world as it was at the time they wrote it. Following this, bits were lost, added to, lost again, and then transcribed, translated, re-transcribed, re-translated etc. by a whole load of different guys all struggling to make sense out of a fragmented text in a different language, sno longer spoken. How on earth would anyone expect that there would not be inaccuracies and contradictions arising from that process?

... and if you claim that 'God guided the hand of the writers, translators etc...", think again.
Why on earth (or in heaven) would he bother? Wouldn't it have been much simpler to write the thing once and set it in stone for all time, and ensure that his word was preserved intact? If God actually wanted that, then that was what he would have done. Come on guys, think about it... even if you are a believer, the real point about having a bible is that it does contain inaccuracies. No believer can be 100% sure that God has not deliberately inserted inaccuracies, simply so that mankind is forced into a debate about 'higher' matters, such as his existence, what the passages actually mean, and the moral and ethical debates ensuing; non-believers of couse just say that that it's just a disparate load of stories & prejudices, to be taken with a pinch of salt.

What you cannot claim, by any sensible and logical reading of the situation, is that it is bible infallible. How on earth could it be, or more importantly, why would it be?

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 12:53, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:A very brief answer: In your first paragraph, you are drawing conclusions on the basis of premises that are not accepted by Christians who believe the Bible in inerrant, and you have not shown those premises to be true. In your second paragraph, you are claiming to know what God would think is the best thing to do, and what you consider reasonable. Perhaps He sees it differently to you. The first sentence of your third paragraph amounts to an assertion with no substance. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 13:22, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::(i) You mean that people do not believe that the bible was written over thousands of years by different authors? Where did it come from then?
:: (ii) If I cannot know the mind of God, then how can anyone? In which case how do ''you'' know what I claim about the mind of God isn't true? Surely by claiming that the bible (which you take to be the word of God) is true, ''you'' are claiming to know the mind of God, and are therefore guilty of what I stand accused.
:: (iii) I am not asserting anything in the last sentence; I am denying an assertion made by others on the basis of a logical argument carried out in the two paragraphs above.

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:42, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::# No, I agree it was written over about 2000 years by a number of different authors. But you made a lot more claims that just that.
::::# I'm not saying that nobody can know anything about the mind of God, but to claim to know the ''best'' way for God to have done something presumes that you know all the possible implications of doing it in different ways. It's like a surveyor mapping the best route for a new railway, then you come along and say that it would have been better to go a different way, not realising that the surveyor knew more about the situation than you, and the way you propose has some unstable ground along the route, or some other problem that you hadn't been aware of.
::::# You are asserting that others cannot claim the Bible to be infallible.
::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Philip, look, I'm sure you think I'm being snarky when I say this, but you really need to educate yourself. Cat's slightly off with his/her dating, but not drastically off. The Pentateuch was written over a 160-200 year span beginning about 720 BCE, with the prophetic material being written as late as 100 BCE. The NT was written between the 5th decade of the first century CE up to (possibly) as late as 120 CE, with editing going on into the 3rd century.
:::The relevancy of whether the premises are supported by bible inerrantists escapes me. History is replete with the dogmatic detritus of the denials of reality by various relious sects.
:::Cat's point re the second paragraph is correct -- you base your denial on a circular argument that only true believers of your ilk can "know the mind of god" and the rest of us are bereft of any comprehension. This is an untenable and preposterous argument, a tautology of the first magnitude.
:::What, precisely, is Cat asserting in the third paragraph? Nothing that I can see (other than, perhaps, a disagreement with previous assertions). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:40, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Some people believe that the Pentateuch was written from around 720 B.C. onwards (I know that already, it's not a lack of education on my part), but other people believe differently. If you were unaware of that, perhaps ''you'' need to educate yourself.
::::: I'm sorry that the relevance escapes you, but what you are doing is simply denigrating people who hold a different view by claiming, without evidence, that they are denying reality. How about proving your case (if you can) instead of just throwing insults?
::::: My argument was not tautologous, but perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying and hopefully my reply to CatWatcher has clarified matters.
::::: See my reply to CatWatcher for what she was asserting.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: In paragraph 3 I am contending that no-one could possibly claim that the bible is infallible, either pragmatically or theologically. Pragmatically it is a distillation of different sources which cannot in principle be expected to agree; theologically it must either be fallible or open to doubt. If it is neither, then it is both valid and indisputable. This means that God has provided us with a document which proves his existence; hence faith is not required, as we have his telephone number & address. The fact that he requires us to have faith, means that the bible, in principle must therefore either be fallible or questionable. QED.
--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 18:11, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Works for me. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 19:50, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I'm not sure that I totally follow your reasoning there, but the problem is with your definition of faith, which, biblically, is trust, based on evidence. You seem to be assuming that faith is belief held without evidence. See [http://tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html here] for a better explanation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, Philip, you've proven one of my suspicions -- you ''do'' rely on the exegesis and opinions of other insofar as they suppoort your belief system. Now, try to find, for example, a discussion of faith that is ''not'' from an apologetics site. Faith is very much the belief in things for which there is no logical basis, no physical proof, no evidence (except in the mind of a believer -- the tautology of faith). Why are you seemingly so afraid to go outside the safe realm of apologetics and look into other opnions? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 07:30, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: [[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]]:
::::: 1) Many people do, in fact claim that the Bible is infallible theologically.
::::: 2) A lesser but significant number do claim that the Bible is infallible pragmatically.
::::: 3) "If it happens, it's possible."
::::: 4) Ergo, you must be wrong when you say "no-one could possibly claim" these things.
::::: Take a look at TerryH's comments in the opening paragraphs of [[Conservapedia:Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?]] for an example of someone who takes Biblical accuracy pretty seriously. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:35, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Despite Phil's protestations, faith is defined by believing something ''without'' evidence. Faith is a feeling, often a decision, to believe in something grander than nature/science. When one is overwhelmed with religious feeling or epiphany, this is a subjective phenomenon. As most of us know, applying science to God rarely leaves either smelling right. Dawkins denies the value of the concept of ''nonoverlapping magisteria'', but it really is a useful concept, and probably more so for Theists than Atheists. I don't want someone coming after my faith with an electron microscope.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:17, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:PalMD is correct on all counts. Faith is a very personal thing, a subjective experience based as much on a longing for purpose as any active decision to believe, It is also much like a drug -- epiphantic moments trigger the same release of chemicals as most euphoria-causing drugs. There is a close affinity between the faithful and people who are substance-dependant: both need to rely on internalised experience based on an external catalyst to reach some form of temporary fulfillment or psychological rapture/ecstacy. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:29, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::No, PalMD is not correct. He says "despite [my] protestations", but has said nothing to refute the linked article which explains why faith is what I said it is. Instead, he has simply asserted without any evidence that I'm wrong. He says that it is "defined" differently, but doesn't say where it is so defined. I'll grant that ''one'' of the meanings of the word is probably the one that he uses, but it is also true that ''another'' meaning is the one I gave, and the real question in this is, which meaning are Christians using (as opposed to their detractors)? Because they are quoting the Bible in support, they are using the meaning that the Bible uses, which is what the linked article was about.
::The problem with the non-overlapping magisteria idea is that they ''do'' overlap. The Bible talks about things to do with astronomy, geology, etc.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:46, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
==What about the big contradiction?==
All of these pale beside the big contradiction—between the Old Testament and the New. This is usually phrased politely as saying that the New Testament "supersedes" the Old, but since the Old Testament in many places calls its laws perpetual, "supersedes" would seem to mean "contradicts."

Thus:

In religious matters, is all of the Old Testament the infallible word of God, and its laws valid for perpetuity?
:Old Testament: Yes. (E.g. Leviticus 3:17, "It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood..." and similar language in numerous other places).
:New Testament: No. Yes. Maybe. Parts. The NT says some parts of the OT are valid, some are not, but doesn't say precisely ''which.''

There is no simple statement in the New Testament to the the effect that "the New Testament supersedes the Old." This view seems to be an inference from passages in the New Testament which are elliptical: Luke 22:20, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you;" Matthew 5:38-48, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.... Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate." Mark 2:27, "And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath."

So, is clear enough that according to the New Testament, with regard to religious matters not ''all'' of the Old Testament is to be considered the infallible word of God. But nothing in the New Testament clearly catalogs ''which'' parts of the Old Testament have been superseded, leaving this to be a matter of interpretation—and the actual interpretation varies widely, depending on who is doing the interpretation. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Moreover, there is ''no'' commandment in the OT saying 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.' That is taken from the Essenes' ''Manual of Discipline'' - which, of course, opens up a whole new can of worms... --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:31, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
::Not being Christian, I can still appreciate the enormous beauty of the quote from Mark, but it does get confusing as to which of Leviticus's over 600 Commandments are still valid for Christians.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 13:28, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I always thought the New Testament was supposed to supersede/replace the Old Testament.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 22:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Depends on whom you believe. See the list:
:*Are the followers of Christ obliged to keep the whole of the Jewish Law (i.e. all 613 positive and negative provisions of it)?
:::Matthew 5:17-18 (Jesus): Yes
:::Romans 6:15 (Paul): No --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Bible

2007-04-10T09:48:36Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* Name */

Talk:Bible

2007-04-10T09:48:21Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* Name */

{{protect|MountainDew}}

== Either un-protect or fix the Name section ==
This is a disgrace. Whoever has protected this article, fix the Name section immediately.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 01:08, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:name section fixed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:04, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

That's odd. I don't remember seeing that when I protected the article. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==Article is too brief!==
This is '''The Bible!''' Don't you think the Word of God deserves a greater article, one with more detail on the subject and its history? I think so! In fact, I think I will start out by doing just that, and here's the proposed layout:

*Intro
*Brief listing of the books within, divided of course into Old/New Testaments.
*History of the Bible...as in '''who wrote it'''.
*Why the world accepts/rejects it.
*Current status
*Include pics and charts and links.

What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:28, 11 March 2007 (EST)

== Why describe it when we can transcribe it? ==

Sounds good to me. But why not PUT the whole Bible on here? It gets quoted often enough.

:Well, the Bible is rather large. I think that the Bible as a whole work can be treated the right way here, with possibly separate articles covering each book, where greater detail is needed.

:I also uploaded a lead-in photograph, but am having trouble with it for the article. Can you help? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:43, 11 March 2007 (EST)

The links I mentioned can be two-fold: a link to online Bible sites where complete versions have been transcribed and posted; and links to Bible software which can be downloaded and run off computers. I happen to have E-Sword, which is very good [www.e-sword.net]. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:46, 11 March 2007 (EST)

==What happened so far==
I took the layout to the next step, which is subsections on both Testaments. The Old Testament has been written with emphasis on its Hebrew origins (Torah, Tanakh, etc), which I feel is a good description anyway, and does not detract from the Christian Bible with the exception of the actual arrangement of the books. I would like to see the Hebrew titles of these books in its own written language, but that may take a bit of editing the actual structure of Conservapedia to accept it.

The Apocrypha, if necessary, can have it's own subheading, but ''after'' the others as listed.

The History subsection can be written as either a history of the whole Bible, or divided into separate periods, as in history of the Torah; the Septuagint; the early Gospels, etc.

Since this is an article about the Bible, it should be restricted specifically to the Bible as a whole and its history. Other topics related to it, such as persecutions of Bible believers, divine creation as in Genesis, individual books, etc, should have their own articles. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==Is Conservapedia just a redacted Wikipedia?==

Somewhere around 80% of this article is a straight reproduction of the Wikipedia Bible article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible] with many of the less conservative points omitted. It seems that either a citation or a rewrite is in order. --[[User:Timothyo|Timothyo]] 21:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Rewrite, definately...what is there should suffice as a structure guide temporarily. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Two things that bug me about this. First and foremost, Wikipedia has a rule on it which states articles there fall under the GPFL thing, and they state specifically that all articles are free from copyright, to use, edit, misuse, whatever. So, if any content here is from Wikipedia, one can say "oh well" and leave it at that.

:Not quite... see my remarks below. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

But that led to some thinking here, and I wanted to see if the original writer(s) of this article had violated copyrights when they posted the material for the first time. I have here at home a book titled "Unger's Bible Dictionary" copyright 1966 by the Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, and the article within titled "Bible" has a number of elements that simply dovetail with the Wikipedia article. Which means there will be a re-write here so that there is no question. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:53, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, list the omitted conservative points you mentioned. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:55, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:The GDFL allows reuse only if the original authors are credited, and the article in which the material is reused is itself released under the GDFL, IIRC. So reuse of Wikipedia content is definitely not allowed here. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::When I posted that very question, it was never answered until now. Tolerate the material in question here for no more than a week, and only then for it's use as a template for something better. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::1) Aschafly has been pretty clear that he, at least, wants Conservapedia articles to be original, and not copies of anything, redacted or not.

:::2) Wikipedia is perfectly happy with the idea of building a "Wikipedia fork," that is a modified copy of Wikipedia. But. There are serious complications with this, due to the GFDL license (which is not easy for anyone to understand, apparently including Wikipedia).

:::3) The big GFDL issue, and the one that I sense Conservapedia will not agree to, is that if you copy and modify a Wikipedia article, you have to make the copy available under GFDL, too. This means a significant loss of control. For example, following the GFDL rules, if Conservapedia took a bunch of Wikipedia articles and rewrote them, and if a liberal cherrypicked the rewritten articles for the funniest examples of ludicrous over-the-top spin... including, of course, vandal edits... and published it in book form as "The Conservapedia Jokebook," I don't think Conservapedia could stop it. (Disclaimer 1: I'm not a lawyer. Disclaimer 2: I don't think ordinary lawyers understand intellectual property law. Disclaimer 3: I'm not so sure intellectual property lawyers understand intellectual property law.).

:::4) Another issue with the GFDL is that anything published under the GFDL must "preserve the history," whatever that means. If someone starts a new article at Wikipedia in 2003, and there are a thousand edits to it, and in 2007 you copy it, rework it, and republish it on Conservapedia, there is supposed to be some way for readers of the Conservapedia article to retrace all those steps if they want to. Nobody seems to be completely sure how to do this, or what does and doesn't really comply with the GFDL, which wasn't really designed to cover anything like Wikipedia. (Somewhere Wikipedia makes a qualified suggestion that ''possibly'' a simple link to the version of the WIkipedia article that served as the jumping-off point ''might'' do). So, Wikipedia encourages re-use, and there are in fact numerous commercial "mirrors" that duplicate Wikipedia content, but Wikipedia does not give any nice clear recipe on exactly how to go about producing a censored or redacted or reworked derivative of Wikipedia. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

It will be as original as possible. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Instead of waiting...==
Did a re-write of the article and removed the content in question. What remains is 1) that which is common to every work about the Bible, whether it's here, or Wikipedia, or Britannica, or many other works; and 2) the references section...Wikipedia most certainly cannot copyright a list of external sources.

But double-check what is there, and let me know what can be changed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Remaining subheadings to add==
Just added "Name" and "References" subheadings. Need to add an over-all history of the Bible, and add a subheading for the various versions in print...possibly with brief histories of each? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Separate articles==
Clicked on [[Genesis]], and got redirected back to the Bible page. Not right. Every book in the Bible should have its own detailed article page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==History of the Bible subheading==
For this, I have a rough layout:
*From the time it was first written down, under Moses, to the last OT book.
*the style of the writing, i.e. by hand and on what.
*Between the Testaments, as in the Septuagint.
*The New Testament
*the early versions of the Bible until the printing press
*Gutenburg and versions up to the KJV
*very brief listing of versions since, including internet impact.
Any other suggestions would be helpful. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:59, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Pictures==
I need two more pics to illustrate this. The first is a pic of a Torah scroll, and what I want to see are people near it with reverence. The second are good copies of New Testament fragments or pages which were hand-written. And of course, they need to be in the public domain, conforming to the rules, etc... [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:50, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==As it stands now==
Although the "History" part of it is not done at this time, the article itself should be written as a straight-up article about the Bible, with none of the allegations, questions, etc. that scholars and historians have made over the years against it. My reasons for it are two:
*Such allegations have been proven wrong time and time again, so why even bother to repeat them here?
*If such allegations need to be written down, then they need a separate article for each where they can be detailed as to points made, reasons why, who postulated them, and all evidence refutting them.
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:14, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Done==
This article is done. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:49, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Very '''very''' nice work there [[User:Karajou|Karajou]]!! Kudos! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 16:09, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::I hate kudos...but peanut M&M's is a nice stand-in! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:30, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Careful! Under 'Name', Greek ''biblos'' did ''not'' mean 'book' . It meant 'papyrus'. You are correct, though, in saying that the ''direct'' source was Greek ''biblia'', 'books' - i.e. the various canonical books of which it was composed. Also, under 'History of the Bible', you would do well to consult the most recent research of on-the-spot archeologists such as Finkelstein and Silberman before being ''too'' sure about the authorship and dating of the earliest books of the Bible! Some caution is also advisable about suggesting that the author of Matthew (whether or not that was his real name -- he doesn't claim that it was) was a direct disciple of Jesus. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== ...sources? ==

Considering how long the article is (I'm certainly impressed!), I find it odd that the entire thing just has five external links inside the article. I'm ''totally'' not going to plaster "fact" tags through the entire thing, but I think that an article with so much information could use a few more sources. Doesn't have to be right now, but more as a general remark. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:32, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, the order is for originality, which is what is here for the most part...but whether incorporated into the text or not, the article could benefit from additional sources. There are extensive links at the bottom of the article for internet info, but what I want are books from at least 50 years or more ago to include in the reference section. The article itself, which is laid out to be just ''about'' the Bible and a brief on its history, should remain the same without any of the controversial stuff others think has to be included...that is a subject for separate articles. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:39, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::Mh, yes, agreed. Tangential topics should get their own articles, possibly with "See also" links at the bottom if they're closely connected to this article. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Oh yes...if there's an article about, say Biblical criticism, then there will be a link here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:59, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The trouble is that, all the while this and other articles are locked, nobody else can insert the relevant links. It's self-defeating! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:13, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==E-Sword pic==
For the record, the image of the E-Sword screenshot is copyrighted, and used here with permission as per the summary. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Authorship of Hebrews?==

Hebrews' author has been disputed for thousands of years - it seems questionable to me to list it as a Pauline epistle without any sort of note that Paul is not its verified author. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 12:02, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

note from stanley d'cunha sdcunha@crescent.ae
i agree with daniel b douglas. the author should have at least parenthetically mentioned that the authorship of letter to the hebrews is not 100 percent by paul --stan, march 18, 2007

:I agree with you; authorship of Hebrews is disputed, but it does lean toward Paul. The point here for this article is a straight history of the Bible as I outlined above, with no sidetracking. The thing you indicated should be put in, but as a subject topic for either the article on Hebrews, or a separate article altogether. If you're willing to take up the task, write what Hebrews is all about, it's history, etc, then write the authorship; what current and past scholars said about it.

:The thing is, because the subject is the Bible, ''every thing written here about the Bible and each book is going to respect Christians and Jews''. As it was said in the Commandments page, this is a family site, and a lot of families hold the Bible as precious. We are going to respect that. Right now I am re-doing the article on [[Genesis]] because the original editor decided not to do it in a respectful way. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:30, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Translations==
At present the article rather gives the impression that all translations are equally valid. In fact, few are as literal - but, at the same time, as generally incomprehensible and occasionally as inaccurate - as the King James Version. It might therefore be worth suggesting this - with caveats - as a basic reference. On the other hand, there are other versions, such as the NIV, which deliberately skew certain words (as, for example, in Genesis 2 and Exodus 20) to fit Christian, and especially fundamentalist dogma. Readers need to be warned of this. Thus, a section needs to be added on translations, suggesting that all assertions regarding what the Bible says need to be checked with at least two translations, one of them being the KJV. The ''Blue Letter Bible'' deserves a mention in this connection, too. However, I see that the rest of us aren't allowed to add such ideas! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I closed it to protect the site from vandalism, and the vandalism was constant. I also wanted just a basic overview of the Bible and its history, but since there are so many versions, adding each one and the related controversy would be ''overkill'' for the article itself, which is what I want to avoid. This includes the subheadings on selected individual versions...just the basics was all that was needed here. So, two things:
*If it is necessary to add something to the article, just post a brief here, and I will open up the article for its inclusion...then all you have to do is to write it in and write it well.
*If the info in question is too long, and has the pro/con stuff, do a separate article on the subject, and I will get a "see also" subheading added. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:46, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks. Why don't I, as a professional translator, just write it here? You can then assess and edit it before including it yourself if you wish, without risk of vandals butting in (though it would be nice to consult me before altering it)!...

:::(Title) '''Bible translations'''
:::When quoting passages from the Bible in Conservapedia, it is important to remember that the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew (apart from a few sections in Aramaic), and the New Testament in Greek. English versions of these often come at second-hand, are rarely completely accurate, and can never be regarded (any more than can any translation of any document whatever) as ''the'' translation. However, some general guidelines are appropriate here:

:::1. Always refer to at least one 'literal' translation, such as the King James Version. This may be old-fashioned, and is occasionally incompetent, but at least it attempts to render every word of the original, and indicates in italics any conjectural forms. It has other advantages for reference-purposes, too (see below).

:::2. In choosing your secondary source, compare it carefully with the KJV to see whether any words have been 'skewed' to fit modern Christian preconceptions. Neither the NIV nor the ''New Jerusalem Bible'', with their particular religious affiliations, are entirely guiltless in this regard. The ''New English Bible'', while extremely readable and innocent of this particular problem, can occasionally be over-free. Up to 50 other versions can be compared verse-for-verse here [http://www.biblegateway.com/], whereupon the 'mavericks' will usually be found to stand out clearly. Bear in mind, though, that most recent translations are copyright.

:::3. A further useful reference is the ''Blue Letter Bible'', which may be found here [http://www.blueletterbible.org/], and which presents and analyses the original Hebrew, Aramaic and/or Greek versions alongside the KJV text.

:::4. Finally, reference to a good Concordance such as Young's ''Analytical Concordance to the Bible'' or Cruden's ''Complete Concordance to the Old and New Testaments'' can help to tie down the true meanings of the original texts: these, too, are based on the KJV text - a fact which renders point 1. above doubly important.

:::''And always remember, even then, that any words you may quote in English here are '''not''' the original words!''

::[OK, try that for size!] --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:18, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I think that calls for a separate article. I do agree with you that over the years men have distorted the Bible's original meaning and words; for example, in the New Testament Jesus is refered to by the title of "cornerstone", which is the first, most important block of the foundation of a building. The NIV changes that to "capstone", which is ''the last'' block added to a building...and it's not right to do everything first and maybe add Jesus last, when it should be the other way around.

'''Differences Between Bible Versions''' might make a good title, with it written in parallel fashion, say the KJV on the left, the NIV on the right, with differences highlighted and reasons for the changes. A great amount of detail can go into it. What do you think? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:31, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, the Hebrew means ''either'' 'cornerstone' ''or'' 'capstone' - though it's difficult to see how you can have a ''chief'' cornerstone. I suspect the imagery is meant to be more like that on the back of the dollar bill - whence, perhaps, the imagery on the back of the dollar bill!

::Yes, '''Differences Between Bible Versions''' looks good to me (as long as ''you'' do it and mention the main points above, especially the last one!), and the NIV would provide some much-needed comparisons (or rather, contrasts)! You can take your examples directly from the admitted rant at [http://www.av1611.org/niv.html]. You'd need to be careful about coypright, though. I imagine the NIV is still in copyright, in which case you'd need permission for any extensive quoting. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Note: I TIMOTHY 3:16 in the original Greek does not say God. There is a use of Kai (and) that ''might'' carry the God reference from I TIMOTHY 3:15, but that's debateable. The key word is "estin" -- he is, he becomes. (BTW, the Vulgate follows the same format as the Greek). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Note: in PHILIPPIANS 2:6 "consider" is in the Vulgate (arbitratus): the Greek has egesato, from agazomai, from agamai which can mean either admire or envy. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Note: In the original Greek, the text of LUKE 2:33 is pater autou (his father), Joe ain't mentioned. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yet another note: COLOSSIANS 1:14 does not mention blood in the original Greek. The NIV is actually more accurate. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:59, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Again, re Mark 1:2,3 -- the KJV edited the text to fix the error. The original Greek is en to esaia to prophete (in (the) Isaiah the prophet). Not "in the Prophets". Ditto for the Vulgate, in Esaia propheta. The KJV is inaccurate in it's translation, apparently in an attempt to fix an error by the author of Mark. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 09:11, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:I would suggest also looking into ''The Five Books of Moses'', by Robert Alter, [http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780393019551&itm=1], as it shows the flaws in all well-known translations, not just the KJV, but the LXX and Vulgate as well.
:Personal comment (as the second professional translator on this page): Of special note is that whole "in the beginning" bit shows more about the thought patterns of the Greeks and Romans with their insertion of ''en arche'' (why no Greek font?) and ''in principio'' than it does anything else -- "In the beginning" does not exist in the Hebrew. In fact, much of the OT as defined in the Septuagint and Vulgate, and by extension the KJV, is that way, and the NT was clearly aimed at the Greeks.
:Finally, the translations from the Hebrew have reflected an attempt to translate based on newer iterations of Hebrew, and often miss the nuances of the original Hebrew text. For example, the "without form, and void" is semantically incorrect, the better translation is "welter and waste". There are nuances missed in the KJV, and the Vulgate's "inanis et vacua" is no better at catching the nuances. The Greek "aoratos kai akataskeuastos" (aargh, where is the greek font?!?), misses the nuance in the same exact way. Why? Because while there is a myth that the Vulgate and KJV were translated from the original Hebrew, they are actually faithful translations of the Septuagint, as is obvious to anyone familiar with forensic linguistics. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 15:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::The KJV as it is right now is based on the last English language update it had (1727).

::When the scholars did the KJV back in the early 1600s, they did consult and use other existing versions as guides, the Septuagint and the Vulgate being two. But their main guides were the Masoretic Text as used by the Jews, and the best Greek translations then current, as well as the best ancient Greek manuscripts they knew existed for the New Testament. For that particular time frame, they knew what they were doing. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Of course, the Masoretic texts being compiled 1000 to 1700 years after the original text, and Hebrew being a language like all other living languages, that is to say a changing one, the Hebrew of the original is substantially different (think Modern English vs the Old English of Beowulf). Nonetheless, given that he same exact mistakes are found in the KJV, the LXX and the Vulgate, it is clear that the LXX and Vulgate were used as more than mere guides.
:Given that the NT was written in Greek (Koine to be exact), I'm not sure what your point is re "best ancient Greek manuscripts they knew existed for the New Testament". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 05:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

With respect, I do not believe in the statements doubting authorship of the Bible by anyone other than the Biblical writers of tradition. But, and I do want to make this clear to everyone, what NousEpirrhytos has written is still part of the Bible's history, albeit a critical view (and he did do a lot of groundwork by the way), and as such I think a separte article concerning textual criticism of the Bible is warranted. According to rules set down by Conservapedia, there must be a point and counterpoint, i.e. a clear concise and authoritative rebuttal to a clear and concise critical view. What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think that might be served, in part, precisely by the two-column arrangement you were suggesting earlier - KJV against NIV, whose manifest corruptions you can easily collect from the web-rant mentioned earlier. On the other hand, it might be more positively productive to add a third column on the right representing a reasonable modern compromise - NAS, perhaps, culled from Bible Gateway. If there's only room for two, though, I think, on reflection, that I would vote for KJV alongisde NAS. Take care with the title, BTW. The word 'Bible' needs to come first, or people aren't going to find the article. How about 'Bible versions compared'? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:32, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::We might not be able to use the NAS, as it is copyrighted by the Lockman Foundation. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm sure there's a way to handle this...however, the issue of the translations' relative accuracy might lead to original research (as in my "Notes" above). Most critical discussions of translations are new enough to be copyrighted, so probably not useable, and not everyone can read Greek or Latin, so including these older texts might be problematic. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Why not ask Lockman? You're entitled to quote up to 200 words or so with due acknowledgement without permission anyway as 'fair use'. They might be happy to let you use more for nothing if you point out that it's by way of criticism and review, and recommending them as a modern source. Otherwise choose another reasonable, modern one? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Portal ==

Please add <nowiki>[[Category:Book of Worship]]</nowiki> as a Bible category.--[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 14:30, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:Can do! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Truth redirect==
Why is [[Truth]] redirected here?

==Name==
Once again, take care! Greek ''biblos'' doesn't mean 'book' (it's 'papyrus'), and ''la Biblia'' isn't Latin (though ''biblia'' is)! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:22, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
:Found the source...''biblos'' does mean ''book''...but before that it came from ''byblos'', meaning papyrus. ''biblos'' in turn led to the Latin word ''biblia'', and the word ''bible'' came to us from that via the French. The line shall be updated. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:09, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
::The original meaning of biblos is indeed papyrus, scroll, paper. The usage of the word to mean book occurs a bit later in Koine, although biblion (little book) was more common. Biblia is from the plural of biblion, and comes from the original title of the Greek version of the bible, ta biblia ta hagia -- τὰ βιβλία τὰ ἅγια -- meaning "the holy books"
::BTW, the word was ''never'' Byblos -- that was the name of a Phonoecian city that produced papyri, biblos was then derived from the town name with an iota replacing the upsilon. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:29, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I just noticed this: ''...Greek Christians had called the Scriptures la Biblia...'' -- la is '''not''' a definite article in Greek, it only accurs in Romance languages as a shortening of the demonstative article ''illa''. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 16:43, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Absolutely. Hence my original remark. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, I know -- but it went over like a flock of seagulls...the shame!
:::BTW Karajou, change la to ta and keep in mind that biblia is plural. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 06:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

The source of information I used came from Dr. Merril F. Unger, a leading theologian/Biblical historian in the first half of the 20th century. If your material is more accurate, please use it here and update the line in question...and if you can use the actual Greek letters like you did here, that would be better! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:57, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Are you sure you didn't just mistype the info from Unger? (It's also possible that the typesetter messed up -- I've yet to see a book that didn't have at least one typesetting error). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 05:43, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:For reference of τὰ βιβλία τὰ ἅγια see [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Bible dictionary.com]. For future reference of Greek definite article see [http://www.monachos.net/greek/8_definite_articles.shtml here] [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 05:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Bible

2007-04-10T09:43:09Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* Name */

{{protect|MountainDew}}

== Either un-protect or fix the Name section ==
This is a disgrace. Whoever has protected this article, fix the Name section immediately.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 01:08, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:name section fixed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:04, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

That's odd. I don't remember seeing that when I protected the article. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==Article is too brief!==
This is '''The Bible!''' Don't you think the Word of God deserves a greater article, one with more detail on the subject and its history? I think so! In fact, I think I will start out by doing just that, and here's the proposed layout:

*Intro
*Brief listing of the books within, divided of course into Old/New Testaments.
*History of the Bible...as in '''who wrote it'''.
*Why the world accepts/rejects it.
*Current status
*Include pics and charts and links.

What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:28, 11 March 2007 (EST)

== Why describe it when we can transcribe it? ==

Sounds good to me. But why not PUT the whole Bible on here? It gets quoted often enough.

:Well, the Bible is rather large. I think that the Bible as a whole work can be treated the right way here, with possibly separate articles covering each book, where greater detail is needed.

:I also uploaded a lead-in photograph, but am having trouble with it for the article. Can you help? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:43, 11 March 2007 (EST)

The links I mentioned can be two-fold: a link to online Bible sites where complete versions have been transcribed and posted; and links to Bible software which can be downloaded and run off computers. I happen to have E-Sword, which is very good [www.e-sword.net]. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:46, 11 March 2007 (EST)

==What happened so far==
I took the layout to the next step, which is subsections on both Testaments. The Old Testament has been written with emphasis on its Hebrew origins (Torah, Tanakh, etc), which I feel is a good description anyway, and does not detract from the Christian Bible with the exception of the actual arrangement of the books. I would like to see the Hebrew titles of these books in its own written language, but that may take a bit of editing the actual structure of Conservapedia to accept it.

The Apocrypha, if necessary, can have it's own subheading, but ''after'' the others as listed.

The History subsection can be written as either a history of the whole Bible, or divided into separate periods, as in history of the Torah; the Septuagint; the early Gospels, etc.

Since this is an article about the Bible, it should be restricted specifically to the Bible as a whole and its history. Other topics related to it, such as persecutions of Bible believers, divine creation as in Genesis, individual books, etc, should have their own articles. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==Is Conservapedia just a redacted Wikipedia?==

Somewhere around 80% of this article is a straight reproduction of the Wikipedia Bible article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible] with many of the less conservative points omitted. It seems that either a citation or a rewrite is in order. --[[User:Timothyo|Timothyo]] 21:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Rewrite, definately...what is there should suffice as a structure guide temporarily. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Two things that bug me about this. First and foremost, Wikipedia has a rule on it which states articles there fall under the GPFL thing, and they state specifically that all articles are free from copyright, to use, edit, misuse, whatever. So, if any content here is from Wikipedia, one can say "oh well" and leave it at that.

:Not quite... see my remarks below. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

But that led to some thinking here, and I wanted to see if the original writer(s) of this article had violated copyrights when they posted the material for the first time. I have here at home a book titled "Unger's Bible Dictionary" copyright 1966 by the Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, and the article within titled "Bible" has a number of elements that simply dovetail with the Wikipedia article. Which means there will be a re-write here so that there is no question. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:53, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, list the omitted conservative points you mentioned. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:55, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:The GDFL allows reuse only if the original authors are credited, and the article in which the material is reused is itself released under the GDFL, IIRC. So reuse of Wikipedia content is definitely not allowed here. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::When I posted that very question, it was never answered until now. Tolerate the material in question here for no more than a week, and only then for it's use as a template for something better. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::1) Aschafly has been pretty clear that he, at least, wants Conservapedia articles to be original, and not copies of anything, redacted or not.

:::2) Wikipedia is perfectly happy with the idea of building a "Wikipedia fork," that is a modified copy of Wikipedia. But. There are serious complications with this, due to the GFDL license (which is not easy for anyone to understand, apparently including Wikipedia).

:::3) The big GFDL issue, and the one that I sense Conservapedia will not agree to, is that if you copy and modify a Wikipedia article, you have to make the copy available under GFDL, too. This means a significant loss of control. For example, following the GFDL rules, if Conservapedia took a bunch of Wikipedia articles and rewrote them, and if a liberal cherrypicked the rewritten articles for the funniest examples of ludicrous over-the-top spin... including, of course, vandal edits... and published it in book form as "The Conservapedia Jokebook," I don't think Conservapedia could stop it. (Disclaimer 1: I'm not a lawyer. Disclaimer 2: I don't think ordinary lawyers understand intellectual property law. Disclaimer 3: I'm not so sure intellectual property lawyers understand intellectual property law.).

:::4) Another issue with the GFDL is that anything published under the GFDL must "preserve the history," whatever that means. If someone starts a new article at Wikipedia in 2003, and there are a thousand edits to it, and in 2007 you copy it, rework it, and republish it on Conservapedia, there is supposed to be some way for readers of the Conservapedia article to retrace all those steps if they want to. Nobody seems to be completely sure how to do this, or what does and doesn't really comply with the GFDL, which wasn't really designed to cover anything like Wikipedia. (Somewhere Wikipedia makes a qualified suggestion that ''possibly'' a simple link to the version of the WIkipedia article that served as the jumping-off point ''might'' do). So, Wikipedia encourages re-use, and there are in fact numerous commercial "mirrors" that duplicate Wikipedia content, but Wikipedia does not give any nice clear recipe on exactly how to go about producing a censored or redacted or reworked derivative of Wikipedia. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

It will be as original as possible. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Instead of waiting...==
Did a re-write of the article and removed the content in question. What remains is 1) that which is common to every work about the Bible, whether it's here, or Wikipedia, or Britannica, or many other works; and 2) the references section...Wikipedia most certainly cannot copyright a list of external sources.

But double-check what is there, and let me know what can be changed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Remaining subheadings to add==
Just added "Name" and "References" subheadings. Need to add an over-all history of the Bible, and add a subheading for the various versions in print...possibly with brief histories of each? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Separate articles==
Clicked on [[Genesis]], and got redirected back to the Bible page. Not right. Every book in the Bible should have its own detailed article page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==History of the Bible subheading==
For this, I have a rough layout:
*From the time it was first written down, under Moses, to the last OT book.
*the style of the writing, i.e. by hand and on what.
*Between the Testaments, as in the Septuagint.
*The New Testament
*the early versions of the Bible until the printing press
*Gutenburg and versions up to the KJV
*very brief listing of versions since, including internet impact.
Any other suggestions would be helpful. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:59, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Pictures==
I need two more pics to illustrate this. The first is a pic of a Torah scroll, and what I want to see are people near it with reverence. The second are good copies of New Testament fragments or pages which were hand-written. And of course, they need to be in the public domain, conforming to the rules, etc... [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:50, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==As it stands now==
Although the "History" part of it is not done at this time, the article itself should be written as a straight-up article about the Bible, with none of the allegations, questions, etc. that scholars and historians have made over the years against it. My reasons for it are two:
*Such allegations have been proven wrong time and time again, so why even bother to repeat them here?
*If such allegations need to be written down, then they need a separate article for each where they can be detailed as to points made, reasons why, who postulated them, and all evidence refutting them.
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:14, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Done==
This article is done. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:49, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Very '''very''' nice work there [[User:Karajou|Karajou]]!! Kudos! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 16:09, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::I hate kudos...but peanut M&M's is a nice stand-in! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:30, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Careful! Under 'Name', Greek ''biblos'' did ''not'' mean 'book' . It meant 'papyrus'. You are correct, though, in saying that the ''direct'' source was Greek ''biblia'', 'books' - i.e. the various canonical books of which it was composed. Also, under 'History of the Bible', you would do well to consult the most recent research of on-the-spot archeologists such as Finkelstein and Silberman before being ''too'' sure about the authorship and dating of the earliest books of the Bible! Some caution is also advisable about suggesting that the author of Matthew (whether or not that was his real name -- he doesn't claim that it was) was a direct disciple of Jesus. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== ...sources? ==

Considering how long the article is (I'm certainly impressed!), I find it odd that the entire thing just has five external links inside the article. I'm ''totally'' not going to plaster "fact" tags through the entire thing, but I think that an article with so much information could use a few more sources. Doesn't have to be right now, but more as a general remark. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:32, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, the order is for originality, which is what is here for the most part...but whether incorporated into the text or not, the article could benefit from additional sources. There are extensive links at the bottom of the article for internet info, but what I want are books from at least 50 years or more ago to include in the reference section. The article itself, which is laid out to be just ''about'' the Bible and a brief on its history, should remain the same without any of the controversial stuff others think has to be included...that is a subject for separate articles. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:39, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::Mh, yes, agreed. Tangential topics should get their own articles, possibly with "See also" links at the bottom if they're closely connected to this article. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Oh yes...if there's an article about, say Biblical criticism, then there will be a link here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:59, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The trouble is that, all the while this and other articles are locked, nobody else can insert the relevant links. It's self-defeating! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:13, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==E-Sword pic==
For the record, the image of the E-Sword screenshot is copyrighted, and used here with permission as per the summary. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Authorship of Hebrews?==

Hebrews' author has been disputed for thousands of years - it seems questionable to me to list it as a Pauline epistle without any sort of note that Paul is not its verified author. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 12:02, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

note from stanley d'cunha sdcunha@crescent.ae
i agree with daniel b douglas. the author should have at least parenthetically mentioned that the authorship of letter to the hebrews is not 100 percent by paul --stan, march 18, 2007

:I agree with you; authorship of Hebrews is disputed, but it does lean toward Paul. The point here for this article is a straight history of the Bible as I outlined above, with no sidetracking. The thing you indicated should be put in, but as a subject topic for either the article on Hebrews, or a separate article altogether. If you're willing to take up the task, write what Hebrews is all about, it's history, etc, then write the authorship; what current and past scholars said about it.

:The thing is, because the subject is the Bible, ''every thing written here about the Bible and each book is going to respect Christians and Jews''. As it was said in the Commandments page, this is a family site, and a lot of families hold the Bible as precious. We are going to respect that. Right now I am re-doing the article on [[Genesis]] because the original editor decided not to do it in a respectful way. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:30, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Translations==
At present the article rather gives the impression that all translations are equally valid. In fact, few are as literal - but, at the same time, as generally incomprehensible and occasionally as inaccurate - as the King James Version. It might therefore be worth suggesting this - with caveats - as a basic reference. On the other hand, there are other versions, such as the NIV, which deliberately skew certain words (as, for example, in Genesis 2 and Exodus 20) to fit Christian, and especially fundamentalist dogma. Readers need to be warned of this. Thus, a section needs to be added on translations, suggesting that all assertions regarding what the Bible says need to be checked with at least two translations, one of them being the KJV. The ''Blue Letter Bible'' deserves a mention in this connection, too. However, I see that the rest of us aren't allowed to add such ideas! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I closed it to protect the site from vandalism, and the vandalism was constant. I also wanted just a basic overview of the Bible and its history, but since there are so many versions, adding each one and the related controversy would be ''overkill'' for the article itself, which is what I want to avoid. This includes the subheadings on selected individual versions...just the basics was all that was needed here. So, two things:
*If it is necessary to add something to the article, just post a brief here, and I will open up the article for its inclusion...then all you have to do is to write it in and write it well.
*If the info in question is too long, and has the pro/con stuff, do a separate article on the subject, and I will get a "see also" subheading added. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:46, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks. Why don't I, as a professional translator, just write it here? You can then assess and edit it before including it yourself if you wish, without risk of vandals butting in (though it would be nice to consult me before altering it)!...

:::(Title) '''Bible translations'''
:::When quoting passages from the Bible in Conservapedia, it is important to remember that the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew (apart from a few sections in Aramaic), and the New Testament in Greek. English versions of these often come at second-hand, are rarely completely accurate, and can never be regarded (any more than can any translation of any document whatever) as ''the'' translation. However, some general guidelines are appropriate here:

:::1. Always refer to at least one 'literal' translation, such as the King James Version. This may be old-fashioned, and is occasionally incompetent, but at least it attempts to render every word of the original, and indicates in italics any conjectural forms. It has other advantages for reference-purposes, too (see below).

:::2. In choosing your secondary source, compare it carefully with the KJV to see whether any words have been 'skewed' to fit modern Christian preconceptions. Neither the NIV nor the ''New Jerusalem Bible'', with their particular religious affiliations, are entirely guiltless in this regard. The ''New English Bible'', while extremely readable and innocent of this particular problem, can occasionally be over-free. Up to 50 other versions can be compared verse-for-verse here [http://www.biblegateway.com/], whereupon the 'mavericks' will usually be found to stand out clearly. Bear in mind, though, that most recent translations are copyright.

:::3. A further useful reference is the ''Blue Letter Bible'', which may be found here [http://www.blueletterbible.org/], and which presents and analyses the original Hebrew, Aramaic and/or Greek versions alongside the KJV text.

:::4. Finally, reference to a good Concordance such as Young's ''Analytical Concordance to the Bible'' or Cruden's ''Complete Concordance to the Old and New Testaments'' can help to tie down the true meanings of the original texts: these, too, are based on the KJV text - a fact which renders point 1. above doubly important.

:::''And always remember, even then, that any words you may quote in English here are '''not''' the original words!''

::[OK, try that for size!] --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:18, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I think that calls for a separate article. I do agree with you that over the years men have distorted the Bible's original meaning and words; for example, in the New Testament Jesus is refered to by the title of "cornerstone", which is the first, most important block of the foundation of a building. The NIV changes that to "capstone", which is ''the last'' block added to a building...and it's not right to do everything first and maybe add Jesus last, when it should be the other way around.

'''Differences Between Bible Versions''' might make a good title, with it written in parallel fashion, say the KJV on the left, the NIV on the right, with differences highlighted and reasons for the changes. A great amount of detail can go into it. What do you think? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:31, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, the Hebrew means ''either'' 'cornerstone' ''or'' 'capstone' - though it's difficult to see how you can have a ''chief'' cornerstone. I suspect the imagery is meant to be more like that on the back of the dollar bill - whence, perhaps, the imagery on the back of the dollar bill!

::Yes, '''Differences Between Bible Versions''' looks good to me (as long as ''you'' do it and mention the main points above, especially the last one!), and the NIV would provide some much-needed comparisons (or rather, contrasts)! You can take your examples directly from the admitted rant at [http://www.av1611.org/niv.html]. You'd need to be careful about coypright, though. I imagine the NIV is still in copyright, in which case you'd need permission for any extensive quoting. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Note: I TIMOTHY 3:16 in the original Greek does not say God. There is a use of Kai (and) that ''might'' carry the God reference from I TIMOTHY 3:15, but that's debateable. The key word is "estin" -- he is, he becomes. (BTW, the Vulgate follows the same format as the Greek). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Note: in PHILIPPIANS 2:6 "consider" is in the Vulgate (arbitratus): the Greek has egesato, from agazomai, from agamai which can mean either admire or envy. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Note: In the original Greek, the text of LUKE 2:33 is pater autou (his father), Joe ain't mentioned. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yet another note: COLOSSIANS 1:14 does not mention blood in the original Greek. The NIV is actually more accurate. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:59, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Again, re Mark 1:2,3 -- the KJV edited the text to fix the error. The original Greek is en to esaia to prophete (in (the) Isaiah the prophet). Not "in the Prophets". Ditto for the Vulgate, in Esaia propheta. The KJV is inaccurate in it's translation, apparently in an attempt to fix an error by the author of Mark. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 09:11, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:I would suggest also looking into ''The Five Books of Moses'', by Robert Alter, [http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780393019551&itm=1], as it shows the flaws in all well-known translations, not just the KJV, but the LXX and Vulgate as well.
:Personal comment (as the second professional translator on this page): Of special note is that whole "in the beginning" bit shows more about the thought patterns of the Greeks and Romans with their insertion of ''en arche'' (why no Greek font?) and ''in principio'' than it does anything else -- "In the beginning" does not exist in the Hebrew. In fact, much of the OT as defined in the Septuagint and Vulgate, and by extension the KJV, is that way, and the NT was clearly aimed at the Greeks.
:Finally, the translations from the Hebrew have reflected an attempt to translate based on newer iterations of Hebrew, and often miss the nuances of the original Hebrew text. For example, the "without form, and void" is semantically incorrect, the better translation is "welter and waste". There are nuances missed in the KJV, and the Vulgate's "inanis et vacua" is no better at catching the nuances. The Greek "aoratos kai akataskeuastos" (aargh, where is the greek font?!?), misses the nuance in the same exact way. Why? Because while there is a myth that the Vulgate and KJV were translated from the original Hebrew, they are actually faithful translations of the Septuagint, as is obvious to anyone familiar with forensic linguistics. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 15:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::The KJV as it is right now is based on the last English language update it had (1727).

::When the scholars did the KJV back in the early 1600s, they did consult and use other existing versions as guides, the Septuagint and the Vulgate being two. But their main guides were the Masoretic Text as used by the Jews, and the best Greek translations then current, as well as the best ancient Greek manuscripts they knew existed for the New Testament. For that particular time frame, they knew what they were doing. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Of course, the Masoretic texts being compiled 1000 to 1700 years after the original text, and Hebrew being a language like all other living languages, that is to say a changing one, the Hebrew of the original is substantially different (think Modern English vs the Old English of Beowulf). Nonetheless, given that he same exact mistakes are found in the KJV, the LXX and the Vulgate, it is clear that the LXX and Vulgate were used as more than mere guides.
:Given that the NT was written in Greek (Koine to be exact), I'm not sure what your point is re "best ancient Greek manuscripts they knew existed for the New Testament". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 05:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

With respect, I do not believe in the statements doubting authorship of the Bible by anyone other than the Biblical writers of tradition. But, and I do want to make this clear to everyone, what NousEpirrhytos has written is still part of the Bible's history, albeit a critical view (and he did do a lot of groundwork by the way), and as such I think a separte article concerning textual criticism of the Bible is warranted. According to rules set down by Conservapedia, there must be a point and counterpoint, i.e. a clear concise and authoritative rebuttal to a clear and concise critical view. What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think that might be served, in part, precisely by the two-column arrangement you were suggesting earlier - KJV against NIV, whose manifest corruptions you can easily collect from the web-rant mentioned earlier. On the other hand, it might be more positively productive to add a third column on the right representing a reasonable modern compromise - NAS, perhaps, culled from Bible Gateway. If there's only room for two, though, I think, on reflection, that I would vote for KJV alongisde NAS. Take care with the title, BTW. The word 'Bible' needs to come first, or people aren't going to find the article. How about 'Bible versions compared'? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:32, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::We might not be able to use the NAS, as it is copyrighted by the Lockman Foundation. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm sure there's a way to handle this...however, the issue of the translations' relative accuracy might lead to original research (as in my "Notes" above). Most critical discussions of translations are new enough to be copyrighted, so probably not useable, and not everyone can read Greek or Latin, so including these older texts might be problematic. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Why not ask Lockman? You're entitled to quote up to 200 words or so with due acknowledgement without permission anyway as 'fair use'. They might be happy to let you use more for nothing if you point out that it's by way of criticism and review, and recommending them as a modern source. Otherwise choose another reasonable, modern one? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Portal ==

Please add <nowiki>[[Category:Book of Worship]]</nowiki> as a Bible category.--[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 14:30, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:Can do! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Truth redirect==
Why is [[Truth]] redirected here?

==Name==
Once again, take care! Greek ''biblos'' doesn't mean 'book' (it's 'papyrus'), and ''la Biblia'' isn't Latin (though ''biblia'' is)! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:22, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
:Found the source...''biblos'' does mean ''book''...but before that it came from ''byblos'', meaning papyrus. ''biblos'' in turn led to the Latin word ''biblia'', and the word ''bible'' came to us from that via the French. The line shall be updated. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:09, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
::The original meaning of biblos is indeed papyrus, scroll, paper. The usage of the word to mean book occurs a bit later in Koine, although biblion (little book) was more common. Biblia is from the plural of biblion, and comes from the original title of the Greek version of the bible, ta biblia ta hagia -- τὰ βιβλία τὰ ἅγια -- meaning "the holy books"
::BTW, the word was ''never'' Byblos -- that was the name of a Phonoecian city that produced papyri, biblos was then derived from the town name with an iota replacing the upsilon. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:29, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I just noticed this: ''...Greek Christians had called the Scriptures la Biblia...'' -- la is '''not''' a definite article in Greek, it only accurs in Romance languages as a shortening of the demonstative article ''illa''. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 16:43, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Absolutely. Hence my original remark. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, I know -- but it went over like a flock of seagulls...the shame!
:::BTW Karajou, change la to ta and keep in mind that biblia is plural. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 06:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

The source of information I used came from Dr. Merril F. Unger, a leading theologian/Biblical historian in the first half of the 20th century. If your material is more accurate, please use it here and update the line in question...and if you can use the actual Greek letters like you did here, that would be better! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:57, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Are you sure you didn't just mistype the info from Unger? (It's also possible that the typesetter messed up -- I've yet to see a book that didn't have at least one typesetting error. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 05:43, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Is the Bible Inerrant?

2007-04-09T19:43:13Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* What's this article trying to achieve? */

== Question on the "wise men" ==

The counter-objection to "Who visited Jesus in his crib?" says, "Ah, no - sorry! Merely 'where the young child was'!".

Is this meant as a retraction? If not, perhaps it means that you've missed the point of the objection. The point is that the magi ''didn't'' visit Jesus in the manger/crib/inn, despite all those nativity scenes showing otherwise.

Firstly, the text says that they visited him "in the house". Secondly, they presumably saw the star when he was born, but spent some time travelling to Bethlehem via Jerusalem, with Herod asking them about when they saw the star. Thirdly, presumably on the basis of their answer, Herod had all the boys up to two years old. Taken together, all these clues indicate that whilst the shepherds visited the new-born Jesus, the magi visited the toddler Jesus up to two years later.

Ergo, no contradiction.

By the way, it's good to see you remove a couple of "contradictions". Keep doing that and you'll eventually have to admit that there are none! :-)

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:31, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Keep going yourself, and you'll hang yourself eventually! ;0) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:35, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
::Why do we even have this list? It's all context switching!--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 12:46, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I don't understand what you mean by "context switching".
:::I'm sure from Petrus' point of view, this article (which he created as "Bible Contradictions") is intended to show that the Bible has mistakes, so cannot be infallible.
:::From my point of view, this article is/can-be useful to show (a) that many of the common bibliosceptic attacks on the Bible are just silly, and (b) the more legitimate criticisms do have answers.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:31, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Not sure about the 'context-switching'. Personally, I'm not referring to 'contexts', but merely listing texts that appear to contradict each other. If others insist on bringing in 'contexts' to justify their objections (which usually means 'interpretations'), good luck to them - but it will merely weaken their case. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:33, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::You miss the beauty of exegesis, Petre, one can make the bible say virtually anything. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:18, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:As certain people, with their constant recourse to exegetical twisters, should have realised by now! ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:35, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::No doubt. But I wonder if they've realised that in the process they've made the Bible say virtually nothing -- it all becomes a maddening din of pseudo-hosannahs, the rumblings of a schizophrenic god and apoplectic apocalypses. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 06:07, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Especially as ''Hosanna'' means, not 'Hooray', but 'Save us now' - so they can't have shouted ''Hosanna '''to'''...'' anyone! ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:31, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Why ==
Why is there discussion going on '''in''' the article? [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 12:48, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:The only reason one may need to resolve possible contradictions of the Bible is to shore-up the belief that it needs to be taken literally, whenever possible.
:If one allows for errors in the Bible then the whole makes more than the sum of the parts.[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 12:52, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, why have an "article" which is a debate? The debate (if we really need one) should be here and later put to the article.--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 12:55, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:It's a moot point. The article was never designed to be a discussion - merely a listing of points pro and con, which is perfectly legitimate IMO. Call it an 'interactive article' if you like - but I don't see why an article shouldn't be interactive in a 'live' encyclopedia. Rather that than the uneditable, monolithic, ''ex cathedra'' pronouncements elsewhere in Conservapedia!... --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::'''Rob Pommer''': Answering alleged contradictions is not to shore up belief, but to refute bibliosceptical attacks on the Bible: "''We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God...''" (2 Corinthians 10:5, NIV). I don't follow the logic of your second point about the sum of the parts.
:::'''Rob Pommer''' and''' bill m''': I'm not comfortable with the format. I think it should be in the form of the criticism (the alleged contradiction) and an objection to it. To have an objection to the objection, and an objection to the objection to the objection , does get rather silly.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:40, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, that's true. Let's try and keep it down to an objection and a possible counter-objection wherever possible. Leave the reader to decide on the merits of that. In any case, keep it brief, and don't drag in all kinds of external commentators to try and argue the case by flattening the opposition, other than by footnote-reference. You may have noticed that ''my'' sole references are to the texts themselves. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::You used the actual texts? How quaint. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:19, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== Poor Bible exegesis offered at this ==

I believe there is very poor [[Bible exegesis]] offered at this article. I put some sources at the beginning of the article in order to give readers an alternative.

Specifically, I offered these web resources:

http://www.tektonics.org/index2.html

http://www.inerrancy.org/

http://www.christian-thinktank.com

http://www.apologeticspress.org/allegeddiscrepancies/

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Conservative, perhaps you missed that two of those sites were already used in some of the objections. But thanks for adding the other two. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:43, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::But in that case shouldn't some skeptical sources be linked, too? In its original format, the article didn't cite ''any'' critical sources - for either side. In fact, in my view, that is much the best idea. Originally it didn't have anything to do with exegesis - merely with what the texts actually say. Citing exterior sources (other than the texts themselves) merely drags in a whole 'war of the commentators' that can only lead to just as much confusion and uncertainty as before. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:50, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes indeedy they should.
:::Still missing the beauty of exigesis, though eh? I mean, think of all the really neat things Nostradamus never said but really did per the use of a non-biblical form of exegesis. Think of all of the UFO mysteries that are cleared up in the same fashion. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==Not to be nit-picky but...==
The portion:
''*Can the Sun and Moon ever appear together in the sky at the same time?''

''Psalm 136:8-9 No. God created "The sun to rule by day...The moon and stars to rule by night."
Genesis 1:16: No. God created "two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night..."''

''Objection 2: The passages in Psalms and Genesis should be taken figuratively rather than literally and thus do not mean that the Moon is always visible at night, nor that it is never visible during the day.''

I'd advise caution here unless it is your intent TO bring up the "when do we '''know''' we're ''supposed'' to take the Bible literally and when to take it figuratively" argument.
Not really a point, just an observation.--[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 09:47, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:I suppose the real issue here is that one cannot claim infallibility when one ceases to be literal. Once one wanders of into the realm of allegory and uses figurative devices "truth" becomes subjective. In other words, the Bible is either the literal truth or it's allegory, but once you allow for the latter you can lay no claim to the former. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 06:02, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::So are you suggesting that if someone you were talking to on the telephone said that "it's raining cats and dogs here", you would have no idea whether or not that was literally true? Is it not the case that metaphor, parable, analogy, etc. can be recognised by the context and/or the language, and that it is therefore possible to take literally the parts that are meant to be taken literally whilst acknowledging the existence of non-literal parts? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Most people I know don't claim to be infallible. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:Philip, your argument falls apart for several reasons. Myk has pointed out one of them: if no claim of infallibility is made or implied, there is no reason to assume same. Another is that as many literalists purport that every word of the bible is the infallible word of God, they simply can't turn around and say, "oh, that part? that's just a story". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 05:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::I couldn't actually see the point of Myk's comment. Claiming or not claiming infallibility says nothing about whether or not something is metaphor, parable, etc.
::I think you've got the wrong idea about infallibility. Christians believe that the entire Bible is inspired by God and is therefore infallible, but that means that it infallibly records people doing the wrong thing, infallibly records the lies that people told, etc. It does ''not'' mean that every word is literally true and that literary devices such as metaphor and parable are not used.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:49, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Clarity in language is important. If something is claimed to be infallible, it best be awfully clear in its language. Go up to someone who has just learned how to speak English and tell them it's raining cats and dogs, see what kind of reaction you get. Further, in biblical times a rain of cats and dogs doesn't seem that implausible (see: Plague of Frogs).

:::Literal truth of the bible means just that. Literal, not metaphorical. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:52, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::That something claimed to be infallible should be clear is your opinion, not a requirement of infallibility.
:::::We are talking about infallibility, not literalism. Despite NousEpirrhytos' comment below, they are two distinct concepts. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Myk, I think we're arguing logic with the wrong person. BTW, Phil, generally speaking infallible, inerrant and literal are used interchangeably when used by fundamentalists and evangelicals.
::::Another BTW, Phil, do you claim to speak for all Christians? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 18:45, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::I disagree that "infallible" and "inerrant" are ''generally'' used interchangeably with "literal" when used by fundamentalists and evangelicals. Perhaps some uninformed Christians use them interchangeably, but they are clearly different things. I see bibliosceptics conflating them more than I see Christians conflating them. ("Infallible" and "inerrant" may be used interchangeably, as they are very close if not identical in meaning.)
:::::Of course I don't claim to speak for all Christians. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::You are of course free to your own opinion. Unfortunately as I have seen (in print) and heard Biblethumpers using the words interchangeably, I really can't agree with you.
::::But, y'know what cracks me up, your use of "bibliosceptics", a neologism that does not mean what you think it does (look up "bibliophile" and ye shall find understanding). In any case, you seem to think that treating the bible just like one would treat any other book is a bad thing -- in reality, in casting a critical eye on books one can gain much wisdom. Alas, I suppose you're content to settle for a belief in salvation, staying far away from the tree of knowledge (after all, you might find that some things you thought to be good are evil, and those you thought to be evil, good). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 18:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== What's this article trying to achieve? ==

Actually, I think the answer to that question, as far as the original editor is concerned, is obvious. It's to discredit the Bible as the infallible Word of God. My reason for having it (as I added to it) is to demonstrate that the alleged contradictions are not in fact contradictions.

But...

Is it the intention to list every "contradiction" ever ''claimed''? Because if it is, there is no way to achieve that without making the page ridiculously large. Perhaps it is to just show a few samples? But so far there's been no discussion about what sorts of alleged contradictions should be included.

And frankly, many of the allegations are plain silly. In fact I quoted someone saying that about one of the alleged contradictions, and Petrus [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Alleged_Bible_contradictions&diff=72033&oldid=72032 removed] the comment. Fair enough, it was supposed to be an answer to the allegation, not a commentary on the allegation, so I didn't restore it. But it needs to be said somewhere. Let's look at this one a bit closer, because it epitomises the problems with the list.

Two sayings (aka proverbs) that most would be familiar with are:
* Many hands make light work.
* Too many cooks spoil the broth.
Are these two sayings contradictory? Taken literally, then yes they are. But does anyone object to them on those grounds? Of course not. Despite them probably being coined by different people at different times, the validity of both is accepted, because neither claims to be always true and both have their place. Sometimes, more helpers ease the burden on others, but at other times too many people result in them getting in each other's way.

So what are we to make of a proverb in the Bible that says, 'Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes."? Is this seriously a contradiction, or like the saying above, are both sentences true in some cases?

To claim that they are contradictory, one must:
* Ignore the fact that they are ''sayings'', not truth-claims that have no exceptions, and read the text literally. Bibliosceptics love to criticise Creationists and fundamentalists for reading the Bible literally, despite them repeatedly saying that they only do this where it was ''meant'' literally, whilst still recognising metaphors, parables, etc. Yet here we have a bibliosceptic reading the text literally in order to make a claim of a contradiction.
* Presume that the original author was so incompetent that he would write two consecutive sentences contradicting each other, apparently without realising it.
* Further presume that many others who included the book of Proverbs in the canon, or who copied it over and over, or who write commentaries on it, are also so incompetent that they never noticed the "contradiction".
* Reject these sorts of explanations and maintain that it ''is'' a contradiction, with the astounding observation that the text doesn't say "this", meaning the answer given. Well the sayings above don't say that they are both true in different circumstances either, but that is something people are simply expected to understand.

Then we have the case of the number of stables that Solomon had. Christians who believe that the Bible is infallible do not believe that all human translations and copies are infallible, but that the original autographs were (although they do believe that the copies are very accurate copies). So if they ''occasionally'' answer that an apparent contradiction is a copyist error (as in the case of the number of stables), it does ''not'' follow that the Bible is therefore not infallible, except in the mind of the bibliosceptic who is doing his best to find all the contradictions he can, perhaps to bolster his own faith. Keep in mind that the answer to that "contradiction" included a link (and remember that Petrus doesn't want to include links) that explained all that. Neither does he want the sort of long explanations that including all that in the article would entail.

I'm not saying that all claimed contradictions are silly. Some claims of contradictions are fair enough, in that they really do ''appear'' to be contradictions, and deserve to be answered. The number of stables one is an example, but the article should state the apparent contradiction, provide the answer, and leave it at that.

In summary, many claimed contradictions in the Bible are nothing more than bibliosceptics grasping at straws and applying criteria that they wouldn't apply in any other situation, in order to try and prove their viewpoint that the Bible is fallible. I don't believe that this article should waste its time on those sorts of "contradictions".

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Hmmm....shall I take the time to point out all of the fallacies of the above? Part of me would like to write a long refutation, but the wiser part knows this to be fruitless. So, I'll just give one example:
:<nowiki>*</nowiki> Many hands make light work. <nowiki>*</nowiki> Too many cooks spoil the broth. You're assuming that the statements are equal but there is a quantitative difference: yes, many hands may make the work easier but at a certain point, the people begin tripping over each other and thus, as they actually impede the work, there is a point, the ''ne plus ultra'', that tips the balance from a comfy many to a disastrous too many. No contradiction. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 05:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Thank you for supporting my point! To quote Petrus' counter-objection to the very "contradiction" I was discussing here, "'''But the text does not actually say this.'''"
:: I figured it would probably be fruitless to convince you blokes too, but I tried anyway.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::While we're on the topic:
::::"He who hesitates is lost" / "Look before you leap"
::::"Cut your losses and let your profits run" / "Buy low, sell high."
::::"Absence makes the heart grow fonder" / "Out of sight, out of mind"
::::"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again." / "Don't beat a dead horse."
:::::19:45, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Excellent examples! - in fact there are few well-known proverbs that don't also have their opposites. But then that makes the point perfectly. No given 'pair' is likely to have been produced by the same person. Their very oppositeness suggests different hands with different views, ''not a single, monolithic author''.

And no, my purpose wasn't 'to discredit the Bible as the infallible Word of God' - merely to provoke people actually to look at the words (in some cases, apparently for the first time!) and decide for themselves whether that proposition is really tenable in the light of the facts. Thus, 'to discredit ''the dogma'' that the Bible is the infallible Word of God', possibly. But about the Bible I'm perfectly neutral. It's indubitably there, and it indubitably says what it says. I merely urge that people read it through clear glass, not stained glass. It's better for the eyes, you know!--[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:45, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:Yet you appear to be reading it through the eyes of a hyper-literalist, rather than as it was meant to be understood. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

How do you know how it is "meant" to be understood? How do you know, for instance, that Genesis 1 was meant to be understood literally? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 18:54, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

...other than by reading it through stained glass? Why can't the text simply be allowed to say what it says, warts and all, without imposing your own dogmas and preconceptions on it - such as the man-made myth of God-given infallibility? Isn't this perilously close to ''biblolatry'', in direct infringement of the spirit of the second commandment? Do you honestly think the Bible needs ''your'' protection from the light of reality, let alone that of all the commentators whom Conservative seems intent on importing into the argument? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:53, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:As noted above, it is best to read the bible in a literary manner, that is to say, the same way you'd read any other book. I've always been amused by folks who dismiss Odysseus tricking the cyclops to save his men as far-fetched mythology and yet cling to the almost parallel David v Goliath story. Both stories are allegorical myths, not litteral renderings of "history". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::You determine how something is meant to be understood by the language used (e.g., does it conform to the style of poetry, narrative, etc.?), and by the culture for whom it was written. If, for example, a sentence said "The rock landed on the marquee", would you understand it to mean that the rock landed on a large tent, or on a canopy projecting out over the entrance to a large building? The correct answer depends on whether the writer was writing for an Australian or British audience, or an American audience. You can also look at how others who would know how to read it understood it, if such records exist. For example, Jesus referred to various aspects of the Genesis narrative as though it was historical fact; He didn't understand it as allegorical myth. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:48, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Precisely. The Genesis narrative was written for (and by) a people living nearly three thousand years ago, and Jesus lived two thousand years ago. That cultural difference is the whole explanation of why the narrative doesn't say, 'The Earth was formed as a result of the agglomeration of cosmic dust some 4,500 million years ago', and why Jesus didn't understand it that way: none of the concepts involved was understood at the time. (Just as well that, as a healer, he had never heard of the symptomatology of schizophrenia!) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Jesus was the Creator, so he would know, and He endorsed what Genesis said. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Well, technically, the only thing we know is that second-hand accounts claimed that Jesus endorsed what Genesis said. We ain't got nothin' from Jesus himself. Jesus didn't write anything. --[[User:ReaganLives|ReaganLives]] 08:46, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::If you want to get technical about it, the ultimate author of the Bible was God, Jesus is God, ergo Jesus is the author of the Bible, so we do have it from Jesus Himself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::I think Jesus is inerrant, therefore he couldn't have written the Bible. Too many internal consistencies. Why don't you believe Jesus is inerrant? Are you a liberal? --[[User:ReaganLives|ReaganLives]] 12:55, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I suspect that what you've typed there is not what you meant to type, but as typed, it doesn't make sense. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:40, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:Or so it's reported in the Gospels.
:Also, if you read the bible in the cultural context, something that is part of any literary reading or scholarship, you'd understand why, for example, the creation stories are written as they are. They are attempts to explain the then unknowable "whence came we?", but from different perspectives, separated in time by about 160 years. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 09:11, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::I agree that it should be understood in its cultural context; that's effectively one of the things I've been saying. But I disagree that the cultural context is that of trying to explain the unknowable. If the Bible is correct, the "unknowable" was revealed by God, thus known. I don't understand the reference to 160 years. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:20, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Then, I would suggest you indulge your curiosity in some real Bible scholarship, rather than reading only those interpretations meant to make members of the evangelical community feel more secure in their ''argumenta ad ignoratium''. I can suggest two well-respected books, based on true interdisciplinary scholarship, if you wish.
:::BTW, what's with the edit summary "Jesus knew"? -- how would you (or anyone else for that matter) know what Jesus "knew". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 16:20, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the condescending remarks. As the Creator, Jesus obviously knew how creation occurred. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:43, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Unless, of course, he wasn't and didn't. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:14, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Vero, Petre. Interesting that Philip states religious dogma as fact. Note, Philip, that I did not use the theological title "Christ" (i.e., Jesus as God), but rather used his human name, thus referring to Jesus as a man. Thus, having clarified my question, I shall ask again: how would you (or anyone else for that matter) know what Jesus "knew". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:10, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: I was stating it in a matter-of-fact way because I was answering the question of how Jesus would know. That's how He would know, and in that context it was proper to put it in that way.
:::: I fail to grasp the distinction that you are making between Jesus as God and Jesus as man, therefore my answer stands. Are you suggesting that the man Jesus was totally oblivious to what He had done as God?
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::''Who said'' Jesus is God? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:58, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::The Bible does. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:39, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::But the Koran doesn't - and the Koran is the Word of God. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 10:54, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::So? You asked who does say it, and the Bible does say it, so the Koran ''not'' saying it doesn't change that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:37, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Further proof of the need to read. I'm talking about assuming Jesus to be just a man, not a god. Try to consider that possibility...it will not harm your faith and you might even learn something in the process. Also, why not try (if you haven't, already) reading the bible without relying on exegesis or the opinions of others, there again you might learn something.
:::Obviously, I have no ken of precisely what you know or think, but it seems, based on what you've written here, that your knowledge is limited to monolithic dogma and that you might think that those of us who see the bible as a book are bereft of biblical knowledge (in the true sense, not some cosmic exegetical sense). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 10:50, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Hey, if you want to get hypothetical and propose that Jesus was not God at all, then sure, he would not have known. But why not also hypothesise that Jesus didn't exist, or that the Bible was written by Shakespeare or something? The point is that I was answering a question about how I would know how Genesis was intended to be understood, and part of my answer was to rely on what Jesus understood it to mean. By "Jesus", I mean the bloke in the New Testament who was actually God and who was actually the Creator. That's what '''I''' meant by "Jesus". The response was to ask how Jesus would know if he ''wasn't'' God. Well sure, if He wasn't God, he wouldn't know, but I was answering the question according to my understanding of who Jesus was. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:49, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::On the basis of what evidence? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:55, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::The Bible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:39, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, this discussion has gone as far as it can. The illogic displayed by Philip is a clear indication that he is not willing to learn anything, and that his lithocephalic attachment to what he "believes" will neither allow him to learn nor to debate in a rational manner. Sad, really. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:59, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::So now you accuse me of being illogical without showing that I have been illogical. Nice. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:47, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::'The Bible' (a whole library of different books, most of which don't even mention Jesus at all) is not evidence, any more than 'the police department's computer' is evidence that Joe Bloggs burgled your house. Cite the precise evidence that Jesus is God, or stop making such absurd claims as that he was the Creator (which even most traditional Christians don't believe) - ideas which, as a faithful Jew, he cannot possibly have supported himself. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:51, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::I can't see the analogy between the Bible and the police computer, but why can't the police computer contain the evidence of a burglary?
::::::Are you unaware of the verses in the Bible that say that Jesus was the Creator? I can quote them if you want, but I suspect that you already know them and reject them for some reason.
::::::Why couldn't Jesus have supported that idea?
::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:49, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Additional topic for study for Phillip: Judaism. 12:53, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Thanks for the non-answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:40, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Oh, it's most definitely an answer. A bit cryptic perhaps, but surely someone gifted in exegesis should be able to pluck the meaning out of the chasm of calypsis. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 15:43, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Petrus' comment of 05:51, 8 April 2007 (EDT) shows but one example of Philip's illogic. Another example would be this sentence, "But why not also hypothesise that Jesus didn't exist, or that the Bible was written by Shakespeare or something?" This is an absurd extrapolation that has no basis in what I said, and as such is an illogical response. Also Philip, while I'm sure you're unaware of this, you should know that for nearly two millenia there have been raging debates within the Chistian community regarding to what extent and where Jesus can use his "supernaural" powers. For example -- for the crucifxion to be a valid sacrifice leading to salvation, Jesus must be all man during that period. Also, early Christianity were beset with a variety of "heresies" (litteraly "schools of thought) that, had they been adopted, would have profoundly changed your current beliefs. See ''Donatism, Manichaeism, Gnosticism, Marcionism, Montanism'' and ''Docetism''. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 07:18, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::It is a rather large extrapolation, to make a point, but it's only an extrapolation, not an example of bad logic. Even if you are correct about Jesus needing to be all man (and I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing), how does that affect what I said? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:49, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I can't think of any convincing evidence from the Bible that Jesus thought he was God, let alone the Creator - so perhaps you'd better enlighten us? Simple references will do. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 10:54, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::I hope you mean that you can't think of any references, rather than you can't think of any "convincing evidence", else I'm probably wasting my time. But here are two (both are talking about Jesus):
{{QuoteBox|In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. (John 1:1-3, NIV)}}
{{QuoteBox|For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. (Colossians 1:16, NIV)}}

:(reduce indent)Equating Jesus with the nebulous "the Word" requires exegesis based on several bad assumptions. The actor (subject) in Colossians, in both the original Greek and the English, is unclear (likely intentionally), and the verses from 1:10 through 1:20 need to be considered in order for 1:16 to be read properly: it is '''not''' a standalone sentence, it is part of a series of subordinate clauses. Yanking biblical quotes out of context is one of the causes of poor understanding and is certainly poor scholarship. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 13:05, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::And yet you have not actually demonstrated that I used them out of context or inappropriately. Would Hebrews 1:1-2 (NIV) be more acceptable?{{quoteBox|In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.}} [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:40, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::There's also Mark: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."

:::::::As for Jesus himself, there's Matthew 16:13-17, {{QuoteBox|When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.}}
:::::::How do you parse this? It's not clear to me why Jesus consistently prefers to call himself the "Son of man," and the annotation in the Oxford Annotated Bible is rather vague: "''Son of man,'' a title which Jesus used of himself, probably seemed to his listeners to carry either of two meanings: (a) that Jesus called himself a typical human being... or (b) that Jesus ... linked himself to the prophesied figure of Dan.7.13-14... Jesus nowhere fully discloses his own understanding of the term." Still, in the above passage, it seems to me that after Peter calls Jesus "the Son of the living God," Jesus ''endorses this as valid divine revelation to Peter.'' That isn't Jesus calling himself the Son of God, but isn't it awfully close?
:::::::Still, this brings up something that bothers me. When people say "the Bible says," sometimes it means "the Bible says," but quite often it means "someone ''in'' the Bible says."
:::::::For example, "the Bible" indeed says "And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights."
:::::::But "the Bible" does not say "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you." Rather, the Bible says Moses says God said this.
:::::::The problem here is whether or not everybody quoted in the Bible has equal authority. Are we allowed to make such judgements, or not? Does the Bible say "For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing" and "a living dog is better than a dead lion?" If we're allowed to say, "no, that's not God, that's just Solomon," then why aren't we allowed to say about Romans 1:26-27, "no, that's not God, that's just Paul?" If everything in the Bible is of equal authority, then why do some Bibles print the words of Christ in red? If everything in the Bible is of equal authority, then why do so few Christians obey the kosher dietary laws? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:09, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::True, one must be careful to distinguish between what the Bible is teaching and what it is simply reporting. It does include reports of incorrect information by various people. But I believe that "the Bible says" is an acceptable way of describing your example about the creatures without fins and scales, given that it is quoting God. If it was quoting Satan, or an evil king, to mention two possibilities, then it would be quite misleading to say "the Bible says" in this case. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:40, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks for sharing that tautology -- "the bible says this, so it must be true" -- and I agree that it is very troubling when arguments of this sort are presented: validation based on an original source is hardly very compelling. Basic problem is that these are written after Paul had established that Jesus was the "anointed one" -- note that the Greek Khristos is applied to both Jesus and David (among others), and the "anointed one" in Judaism ''is'' a son of man who becomes king ( a la David). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:41, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::I'm not sure what you are referring to with the tautology reference, because nobody said those precise words. But if you are referring to me, I don't believe that I said anything that amounts to that. If you think otherwise, please quote or clearly point to the precise thing I did say. However, your quote, as it stands, is not actually a tautology anyway. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:40, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

1. 'Son of God' does ''not'' mean 'God'. All Israelites were 'sons of God' ''by definition''. That's why David claims the same title at Psalm 2:7 (at the same time making it clear that it's ''by adoption''), and why Jesus was able to teach his followers to pray 'Our Father...'

2. 'The Messiah, the Son of God' seems to have been a pre-existing title at the time (cf Schonfield): it referred to the 'Son of God' (i.e. the archetypal Israelite) who was to come - the particular 'son of man' (''bar enash'' or, in Hebrew, ''ben adam'', which ''still'' means 'man' even today) referred to by the book of Daniel.

4. In your quote from the beginning of John, the 'and the Word was God' bit should almost certainly read 'and the Word was divine'. Otherwise it simply doesn't make sense in terms of the previous sentence, let alone in terms of the familiar Pharisaic doctrine of the ''logos'' (i.e. the Adam Kadmon, or man-thought-in-the-mind-of-God) that is reflected not only in the text, but in the traditional Jewish wedding service ('last in creation, first in thought').

5. Not only does the Koran not say that Jesus was God, it specifically denies that Jesus was even his son (i.e. in the normal sense of the word). So, since the Koran claims repeatedly to be the word of God, whereas the Bible doesn't claim to be (it can't have done, since it didn't exist as a book for the claim to be made at the time when it was written), it's clearly the Koran that should be believed, if anything...

6. You have told us what Paul thought about it and what John thought about it, but I asked you what ''Jesus'' thought about it. So far, you haven't told us a single word about that. Why are you being so evasive? ''Please give us convincing evidence from the Bible that Jesus thought he was God (let alone 'the Creator')''. Just the simple references will do: no need to write a novel about it.

Oh - and if you ''must'' quote the passages concerned, please use a more reputable translation than the NIV! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:57, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, thank you, Petre. Paul's opinions are nice, and without them Paulism, er Christianity might never have gotten off the ground, but they are merely Paul's opinions. Phil, you need to do a bit more reading into the logos theory (among all the other reading you really should do).
:Phil, reread what Dpbsmith wrote, the problems to which he refered and perhaps you'll understand the point. Also, if English is the best you can do, pick a better source than the NIV. Of course, I have the advantage of being able to read Greek (the language of the NT), and as a linguist I know that no translation can capture precisely what was said in the other language (especially shades of meaning and double entendres), thus I am able to compare and contrast the sources and develop a fuller understanding of the text. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 06:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

----
I'm not continuing this discussion any more, as it has strayed far from the original topic yet the original points have mostly not been addressed. I'll give a few examples so that that is not just an unsubstantiated assertion.
* I noted that there has been no discussion of what sorts of alleged contradictions should be listed. There has still been no such discussion.
* I asked why a police computer could not contain evidence of a burglary. There was no reply to that question.
* I said that the Bible said that Jesus was the Creator. I was asked to supply evidence that Jesus thought He was the Creator. I supplied evidence that the Bible referred to Jesus as the Creator. This was dismissed because it didn't show ''that Jesus thought that''. But that is not what I claimed. I was actually asked to provide evidence to something I didn't claim, only to have my answer dismissed because it didn't meet the straw-man.
The discussion has also diverted into whether the Old Testament and the New Testament agree, which again is nothing to do with the issue I raised. All this discussion is taking time to answer, and it's time that I'm not prepared to spend any longer when the issues that I raised are not being addressed but are instead being used to launch into new criticisms.

See you all on other talk pages. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:01, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Protected debate page? ==

Whats the deal with the protected debate page? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:57, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:Conservative apparently went on a "Clean up unsourced statements" trip (blocked Hoji in the process for re-inserting things - who then unblocked himself because he's so awesome), not realizing that this is not in the Main space anymore. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:02, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::I then went to delete some other unsourced stuff. But, CPAdmin1 reverted it, and I have asked him why, because this is ridiculous to the Nth degree. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:05, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== This "namespace" is a joke. It claimed people to be scholars who weren't ==

Hoji wrote to me regarding [[Conservapedia:Alleged Bible contradictions]] the following: " It is a Conservapedia: namespace, is NOT AN ARTICLE, and does NOT need citations."

I can't think of anything more detrimental to Conservapedia than to be filled with "Namespaces" (whatever those are) because people can say just about any foolish thing without backing it up.

The "contradiction" page is a monstrosity claiming people to be "critical scholars" who have no real credentials ('''Unix systems engineer'''), etc.

What's with this whole "namespace" idea?

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:13, 5 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

: The namespace means its not a real article and lets people bicker back and foreth without the threat of getting banned. Citations are not needed (unless you presume to go clean up the other Conservapedia namespace articles that lack citations). What are your credentials anyways? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Especially where the introductory remarks merely refer to what ''generally'' happens - on ''both'' sides of the argument! One almost gets the impression that ''somebody'' is afraid to have both sides stated! Such paranoia is both unworthy and unnecessary. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:58, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: *sigh* Ask first, act then. It's not quantum physics. "Namespace" = a sort of container, filled with articles. All regular articles are in the "Main" namespace (for example, [[Theory of evolution]] is in the main namespace). Article Talk pages (like [[Talk:Theory of evolution]]) are in the "Talk" namespace. Same goes for pages in the "Help" namespace (all articles starting with "Help:...") or the "Conservapedia" namespace (like this "article").
:Articles in the "Conservapedia" namespace are NOT regular articles. All debates are in it, along with a few special pages about Conservapedia itself. This "article" was moved from the "Main" namespace to the "Conservapedia" namespace - most likely BECAUSE it's not a normal article and more of a debate.
:As you may have noticed, debates fall a bit out of the normal rules - not everything must be sourced (althouth it helps). Original research and argumentation is naturally a part of a debate, so it's completely counter-intuitive to suddenly "clean up" things - you're destroying a debate archive. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:24, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::This is a prime example of why, instead of reverting blindly without even understanding the Wiki model, you should consult other editors. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:32, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==unwinable battle==
Glad to see that section removed, as it was essentially a big "so what?" Crowing that "noted evangelical scholars" (a bit of an oxymoron) signed such and such petition supporting Bible inerrancy is as valueless as a petition signed by baseball player saying they support baseball. @@ [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:22, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

=="Contradictions need to be proved"==
Looks like a long paragraph of someone's personal opinion. Is there a source somewhere that defines what a "Biblical contradiction" is? A generally accepted rulebook that says whom the "onus" is upon and so forth? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:A biblical contradiction is the same as any other contradictions, and contradictions are generally the responsibility of the speaker/writer or his/her representatives to clear up. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 16:38, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== I do not understand this argument. ==

Could someone please explain to me how anyone in their right mind could think this is a sensible argument to have? The collection of works called the bible was written over thousands of years by a load of different guys in various languages, with different agendas, different points of view, and using their limited understanding of the world as it was at the time they wrote it. Following this, bits were lost, added to, lost again, and then transcribed, translated, re-transcribed, re-translated etc. by a whole load of different guys all struggling to make sense out of a fragmented text in a different language, sno longer spoken. How on earth would anyone expect that there would not be inaccuracies and contradictions arising from that process?

... and if you claim that 'God guided the hand of the writers, translators etc...", think again.
Why on earth (or in heaven) would he bother? Wouldn't it have been much simpler to write the thing once and set it in stone for all time, and ensure that his word was preserved intact? If God actually wanted that, then that was what he would have done. Come on guys, think about it... even if you are a believer, the real point about having a bible is that it does contain inaccuracies. No believer can be 100% sure that God has not deliberately inserted inaccuracies, simply so that mankind is forced into a debate about 'higher' matters, such as his existence, what the passages actually mean, and the moral and ethical debates ensuing; non-believers of couse just say that that it's just a disparate load of stories & prejudices, to be taken with a pinch of salt.

What you cannot claim, by any sensible and logical reading of the situation, is that it is bible infallible. How on earth could it be, or more importantly, why would it be?

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 12:53, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:A very brief answer: In your first paragraph, you are drawing conclusions on the basis of premises that are not accepted by Christians who believe the Bible in inerrant, and you have not shown those premises to be true. In your second paragraph, you are claiming to know what God would think is the best thing to do, and what you consider reasonable. Perhaps He sees it differently to you. The first sentence of your third paragraph amounts to an assertion with no substance. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 13:22, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::(i) You mean that people do not believe that the bible was written over thousands of years by different authors? Where did it come from then?
:: (ii) If I cannot know the mind of God, then how can anyone? In which case how do ''you'' know what I claim about the mind of God isn't true? Surely by claiming that the bible (which you take to be the word of God) is true, ''you'' are claiming to know the mind of God, and are therefore guilty of what I stand accused.
:: (iii) I am not asserting anything in the last sentence; I am denying an assertion made by others on the basis of a logical argument carried out in the two paragraphs above.

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:42, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::# No, I agree it was written over about 2000 years by a number of different authors. But you made a lot more claims that just that.
::::# I'm not saying that nobody can know anything about the mind of God, but to claim to know the ''best'' way for God to have done something presumes that you know all the possible implications of doing it in different ways. It's like a surveyor mapping the best route for a new railway, then you come along and say that it would have been better to go a different way, not realising that the surveyor knew more about the situation than you, and the way you propose has some unstable ground along the route, or some other problem that you hadn't been aware of.
::::# You are asserting that others cannot claim the Bible to be infallible.
::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Philip, look, I'm sure you think I'm being snarky when I say this, but you really need to educate yourself. Cat's slightly off with his/her dating, but not drastically off. The Pentateuch was written over a 160-200 year span beginning about 720 BCE, with the prophetic material being written as late as 100 BCE. The NT was written between the 5th decade of the first century CE up to (possibly) as late as 120 CE, with editing going on into the 3rd century.
:::The relevancy of whether the premises are supported by bible inerrantists escapes me. History is replete with the dogmatic detritus of the denials of reality by various relious sects.
:::Cat's point re the second paragraph is correct -- you base your denial on a circular argument that only true believers of your ilk can "know the mind of god" and the rest of us are bereft of any comprehension. This is an untenable and preposterous argument, a tautology of the first magnitude.
:::What, precisely, is Cat asserting in the third paragraph? Nothing that I can see (other than, perhaps, a disagreement with previous assertions). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:40, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Some people believe that the Pentateuch was written from around 720 B.C. onwards (I know that already, it's not a lack of education on my part), but other people believe differently. If you were unaware of that, perhaps ''you'' need to educate yourself.
::::: I'm sorry that the relevance escapes you, but what you are doing is simply denigrating people who hold a different view by claiming, without evidence, that they are denying reality. How about proving your case (if you can) instead of just throwing insults?
::::: My argument was not tautologous, but perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying and hopefully my reply to CatWatcher has clarified matters.
::::: See my reply to CatWatcher for what she was asserting.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: In paragraph 3 I am contending that no-one could possibly claim that the bible is infallible, either pragmatically or theologically. Pragmatically it is a distillation of different sources which cannot in principle be expected to agree; theologically it must either be fallible or open to doubt. If it is neither, then it is both valid and indisputable. This means that God has provided us with a document which proves his existence; hence faith is not required, as we have his telephone number & address. The fact that he requires us to have faith, means that the bible, in principle must therefore either be fallible or questionable. QED.
--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 18:11, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Works for me. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 19:50, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I'm not sure that I totally follow your reasoning there, but the problem is with your definition of faith, which, biblically, is trust, based on evidence. You seem to be assuming that faith is belief held without evidence. See [http://tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html here] for a better explanation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, Philip, you've proven one of my suspicions -- you ''do'' rely on the exegesis and opinions of other insofar as they suppoort your belief system. Now, try to find, for example, a discussion of faith that is ''not'' from an apologetics site. Faith is very much the belief in things for which there is no logical basis, no physical proof, no evidence (except in the mind of a believer -- the tautology of faith). Why are you seemingly so afraid to go outside the safe realm of apologetics and look into other opnions? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 07:30, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: [[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]]:
::::: 1) Many people do, in fact claim that the Bible is infallible theologically.
::::: 2) A lesser but significant number do claim that the Bible is infallible pragmatically.
::::: 3) "If it happens, it's possible."
::::: 4) Ergo, you must be wrong when you say "no-one could possibly claim" these things.
::::: Take a look at TerryH's comments in the opening paragraphs of [[Conservapedia:Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?]] for an example of someone who takes Biblical accuracy pretty seriously. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:35, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Despite Phil's protestations, faith is defined by believing something ''without'' evidence. Faith is a feeling, often a decision, to believe in something grander than nature/science. When one is overwhelmed with religious feeling or epiphany, this is a subjective phenomenon. As most of us know, applying science to God rarely leaves either smelling right. Dawkins denies the value of the concept of ''nonoverlapping magisteria'', but it really is a useful concept, and probably more so for Theists than Atheists. I don't want someone coming after my faith with an electron microscope.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:17, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:PalMD is correct on all counts. Faith is a very personal thing, a subjective experience based as much on a longing for purpose as any active decision to believe, It is also much like a drug -- epiphantic moments trigger the same release of chemicals as most euphoria-causing drugs. There is a close affinity between the faithful and people who are substance-dependant: both need to rely on internalised experience based on an external catalyst to reach some form of temporary fulfillment or psychological rapture/ecstacy. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:29, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::No, PalMD is not correct. He says "despite [my] protestations", but has said nothing to refute the linked article which explains why faith is what I said it is. Instead, he has simply asserted without any evidence that I'm wrong. He says that it is "defined" differently, but doesn't say where it is so defined. I'll grant that ''one'' of the meanings of the word is probably the one that he uses, but it is also true that ''another'' meaning is the one I gave, and the real question in this is, which meaning are Christians using (as opposed to their detractors)? Because they are quoting the Bible in support, they are using the meaning that the Bible uses, which is what the linked article was about.
::The problem with the non-overlapping magisteria idea is that they ''do'' overlap. The Bible talks about things to do with astronomy, geology, etc.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:46, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
==What about the big contradiction?==
All of these pale beside the big contradiction—between the Old Testament and the New. This is usually phrased politely as saying that the New Testament "supersedes" the Old, but since the Old Testament in many places calls its laws perpetual, "supersedes" would seem to mean "contradicts."

Thus:

In religious matters, is all of the Old Testament the infallible word of God, and its laws valid for perpetuity?
:Old Testament: Yes. (E.g. Leviticus 3:17, "It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood..." and similar language in numerous other places).
:New Testament: No. Yes. Maybe. Parts. The NT says some parts of the OT are valid, some are not, but doesn't say precisely ''which.''

There is no simple statement in the New Testament to the the effect that "the New Testament supersedes the Old." This view seems to be an inference from passages in the New Testament which are elliptical: Luke 22:20, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you;" Matthew 5:38-48, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.... Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate." Mark 2:27, "And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath."

So, is clear enough that according to the New Testament, with regard to religious matters not ''all'' of the Old Testament is to be considered the infallible word of God. But nothing in the New Testament clearly catalogs ''which'' parts of the Old Testament have been superseded, leaving this to be a matter of interpretation—and the actual interpretation varies widely, depending on who is doing the interpretation. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Moreover, there is ''no'' commandment in the OT saying 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.' That is taken from the Essenes' ''Manual of Discipline'' - which, of course, opens up a whole new can of worms... --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:31, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
::Not being Christian, I can still appreciate the enormous beauty of the quote from Mark, but it does get confusing as to which of Leviticus's over 600 Commandments are still valid for Christians.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 13:28, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Women

2007-04-09T17:47:49Z

NousEpirrhytos: fix ratios -- they are reduced to the LCD, note US

{{generalize}}

'''Women''' is the plural for the female of the human species, with the biological role of bearing and nurturing offspring. In preparation for this role, women's breasts begin to grow at puberty, forming the most striking physical difference between women and men after the reproductive organs. Other differences include a layer of subcutaneous fat under the skin which hides the underlying musculature and a wider pelvis to facilitate carrying the embryo and allowing it it pass out of the body. Women also have a greater proportion of fine vellus hair over certain areas of their skin (such as their face and legs) than the coarse terminal hair which appears on men.

While men have typically two or three times more upper body strength than women, their leg strength is comparable and women have proven more durable in feats of physical endurance. Women have slightly longer average lifespans than men, which results in women overtaking men in population by middle age despite a 1.05:1 boy to girl ratio at birth in the United States. This rate varies among countries.

== Women in history ==

Compared to men, relatively few women have had impact on history as leaders in diverse fields, but a small number of women have had enormous impact. They include [[Isabella of Spain]], [[Margaret Thatcher]], [[Elizabeth I]], [[Boudicca]], [[Catherine the Great]], [[Cleopatra]], [[Marie Curie]], [[Benazir Bhutto]], [[Golda Meir]], [[Indira Gandhi]], [[Lucretia Mott]], [[Susan B. Anthony]], [[Aung San Suu Kyi]], and [[Theresa of Calcutta]].

== Women in the Bible ==

=== Genesis ===
According to [[biblical literalism]], women, like men, were created by God on the 6th day of [[Creation]], as told in The Book of [[Genesis]]. [[Genesis]] further elaborates that [[God]] took a rib from [[Adam]], the first man, and from it created [[Eve]], the first woman, as a subservient companion for [[Adam]]. Also not explicitly stated in the [[Bible]], it is obvious that, due to the manner in which Eve was created, she was Adam's wife, as God does not intend for two humans in such a union to be any other way.{{fact}} According to some biblical literalists, Eve caused sin and suffering to come into the world when she tricked Adam into eating from The Tree of Knowledge an act directly forbidden by God Himself. As punishment for this, God declared that women shall experience great pain in childbirth and shall always be ruled over by their husbands. <ref>Genesis 3:16</ref>

=== Biblical statements on the role of women ===
Saint Paul also has much to say on the status of women in society, most memorably that women should submit to their husbands just as the church submits to God.
<ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ephesians%205:22-24&version=9 Ephesians 5:22-24 ]</ref>
<ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Corinthians%2011:8-9;&version=9; I Corinthians 11:8-9]</ref>
<ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Corinthians%2011:4-7;&version=9; I Corinthians 11:4-7]</ref>
<ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Corinthians%2014:34-35;&version=9; I Corinthians 14:34-35]</ref>
The Bible also states that if a man sells his daughter into slavery she must consent and "not go out as the menservants do." (Exodus 21:7)

The New Testament contains many instructions regarding the role of women:
# Women are to dress modestly<ref>1 Timothy 2:9</ref><ref>Peter 3:2-6</ref>.
# Women may learn in silence, but may not be permitted to teach<ref>1 Timothy 2:11-12</ref>. Some interpreations limit this rule to the teaching of doctrine.
# Women are not permitted to speak in church<ref>1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (Spoken by Paul></ref>.
# Women are to be subservient to and follow the instructions of their husbands<ref>Ephesians 5:22-24</ref><ref>Colossians 3:18</ref><ref>Titus 2:4-5</ref><ref>1 Peter 3:1-7</ref>.

These viewpoints, which bear much in common with Koranic pronouncements on the subject, are not not widely accepted in first-world nations, although some individuals still adhere to them.

==References==
<references />

== Related Topics ==
[[Men]]

Women

2007-04-09T17:43:29Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* Biblical statements on the role of women */

{{generalize}}

'''Women''' is the plural for the female of the human species, with the biological role of bearing and nurturing offspring. In preparation for this role, women's breasts begin to grow at puberty, forming the most striking physical difference between women and men after the reproductive organs. Other differences include a layer of subcutaneous fat under the skin which hides the underlying musculature and a wider pelvis to facilitate carrying the embryo and allowing it it pass out of the body. Women also have a greater proportion of fine vellus hair over certain areas of their skin (such as their face and legs) than the coarse terminal hair which appears on men.

While men have typically two or three times more upper body strength than women, their leg strength is comparable and women have proven more durable in feats of physical endurance. Women have slightly longer average lifespans than men, which results in women overtaking men in population by middle age despite a 105:100 boy to girl ratio at birth.

== Women in history ==

Compared to men, relatively few women have had impact on history as leaders in diverse fields, but a small number of women have had enormous impact. They include [[Isabella of Spain]], [[Margaret Thatcher]], [[Elizabeth I]], [[Boudicca]], [[Catherine the Great]], [[Cleopatra]], [[Marie Curie]], [[Benazir Bhutto]], [[Golda Meir]], [[Indira Gandhi]], [[Lucretia Mott]], [[Susan B. Anthony]], [[Aung San Suu Kyi]], and [[Theresa of Calcutta]].

== Women in the Bible ==

=== Genesis ===
According to [[biblical literalism]], women, like men, were created by God on the 6th day of [[Creation]], as told in The Book of [[Genesis]]. [[Genesis]] further elaborates that [[God]] took a rib from [[Adam]], the first man, and from it created [[Eve]], the first woman, as a subservient companion for [[Adam]]. Also not explicitly stated in the [[Bible]], it is obvious that, due to the manner in which Eve was created, she was Adam's wife, as God does not intend for two humans in such a union to be any other way.{{fact}} According to some biblical literalists, Eve caused sin and suffering to come into the world when she tricked Adam into eating from The Tree of Knowledge an act directly forbidden by God Himself. As punishment for this, God declared that women shall experience great pain in childbirth and shall always be ruled over by their husbands. <ref>Genesis 3:16</ref>

=== Biblical statements on the role of women ===
Saint Paul also has much to say on the status of women in society, most memorably that women should submit to their husbands just as the church submits to God.
<ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ephesians%205:22-24&version=9 Ephesians 5:22-24 ]</ref>
<ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Corinthians%2011:8-9;&version=9; I Corinthians 11:8-9]</ref>
<ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Corinthians%2011:4-7;&version=9; I Corinthians 11:4-7]</ref>
<ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Corinthians%2014:34-35;&version=9; I Corinthians 14:34-35]</ref>
The Bible also states that if a man sells his daughter into slavery she must consent and "not go out as the menservants do." (Exodus 21:7)

The New Testament contains many instructions regarding the role of women:
# Women are to dress modestly<ref>1 Timothy 2:9</ref><ref>Peter 3:2-6</ref>.
# Women may learn in silence, but may not be permitted to teach<ref>1 Timothy 2:11-12</ref>. Some interpreations limit this rule to the teaching of doctrine.
# Women are not permitted to speak in church<ref>1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (Spoken by Paul></ref>.
# Women are to be subservient to and follow the instructions of their husbands<ref>Ephesians 5:22-24</ref><ref>Colossians 3:18</ref><ref>Titus 2:4-5</ref><ref>1 Peter 3:1-7</ref>.

These viewpoints, which bear much in common with Koranic pronouncements on the subject, are not not widely accepted in first-world nations, although some individuals still adhere to them.

==References==
<references />

== Related Topics ==
[[Men]]

Women

2007-04-09T17:42:08Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* Genesis */ why the unnecessary caps?

{{generalize}}

'''Women''' is the plural for the female of the human species, with the biological role of bearing and nurturing offspring. In preparation for this role, women's breasts begin to grow at puberty, forming the most striking physical difference between women and men after the reproductive organs. Other differences include a layer of subcutaneous fat under the skin which hides the underlying musculature and a wider pelvis to facilitate carrying the embryo and allowing it it pass out of the body. Women also have a greater proportion of fine vellus hair over certain areas of their skin (such as their face and legs) than the coarse terminal hair which appears on men.

While men have typically two or three times more upper body strength than women, their leg strength is comparable and women have proven more durable in feats of physical endurance. Women have slightly longer average lifespans than men, which results in women overtaking men in population by middle age despite a 105:100 boy to girl ratio at birth.

== Women in history ==

Compared to men, relatively few women have had impact on history as leaders in diverse fields, but a small number of women have had enormous impact. They include [[Isabella of Spain]], [[Margaret Thatcher]], [[Elizabeth I]], [[Boudicca]], [[Catherine the Great]], [[Cleopatra]], [[Marie Curie]], [[Benazir Bhutto]], [[Golda Meir]], [[Indira Gandhi]], [[Lucretia Mott]], [[Susan B. Anthony]], [[Aung San Suu Kyi]], and [[Theresa of Calcutta]].

== Women in the Bible ==

=== Genesis ===
According to [[biblical literalism]], women, like men, were created by God on the 6th day of [[Creation]], as told in The Book of [[Genesis]]. [[Genesis]] further elaborates that [[God]] took a rib from [[Adam]], the first man, and from it created [[Eve]], the first woman, as a subservient companion for [[Adam]]. Also not explicitly stated in the [[Bible]], it is obvious that, due to the manner in which Eve was created, she was Adam's wife, as God does not intend for two humans in such a union to be any other way.{{fact}} According to some biblical literalists, Eve caused sin and suffering to come into the world when she tricked Adam into eating from The Tree of Knowledge an act directly forbidden by God Himself. As punishment for this, God declared that women shall experience great pain in childbirth and shall always be ruled over by their husbands. <ref>Genesis 3:16</ref>

=== Biblical statements on the role of women ===
Saint Paul also has much to say on the status of women in society, most memorably that women should submit to their husbands just as the church submits to God.
<ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ephesians%205:22-24&version=9 Ephesians 5:22-24 ]</ref>
<ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Corinthians%2011:8-9;&version=9; I Corinthians 11:8-9]</ref>
<ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Corinthians%2011:4-7;&version=9; I Corinthians 11:4-7]</ref>
<ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Corinthians%2014:34-35;&version=9; I Corinthians 14:34-35]</ref>
The Bible also states that if a man sells his daughter into slavery she must consent and "not go out as the menservants do." (Exodus 21:7)

The New Testament contains many instructions regarding the role of women:
# Women are to dress modestly<ref>1 Timothy 2:9</ref><ref>Peter 3:2-6</ref>.
# Women may learn in silence, but may not be permitted to teach<ref>1 Timothy 2:11-12</ref>. Some interpreations limit this rule to the teaching of doctrine.
# Women are not permitted to speak in church<ref>1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (Spoken by Paul></ref>.
# Women are to be subservient to and follow the instructions of their husbands<ref>Ephesians 5:22-24</ref><ref>Colossians 3:18</ref><ref>Titus 2:4-5</ref><ref>1 Peter 3:1-7</ref>.

These viewpoints are not not widely accepted in first-world nations, although some individuals still adhere to them.

==References==
<references />

== Related Topics ==
[[Men]]

Women

2007-04-09T17:39:39Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* Women in history */ adding

{{generalize}}

'''Women''' is the plural for the female of the human species, with the biological role of bearing and nurturing offspring. In preparation for this role, women's breasts begin to grow at puberty, forming the most striking physical difference between women and men after the reproductive organs. Other differences include a layer of subcutaneous fat under the skin which hides the underlying musculature and a wider pelvis to facilitate carrying the embryo and allowing it it pass out of the body. Women also have a greater proportion of fine vellus hair over certain areas of their skin (such as their face and legs) than the coarse terminal hair which appears on men.

While men have typically two or three times more upper body strength than women, their leg strength is comparable and women have proven more durable in feats of physical endurance. Women have slightly longer average lifespans than men, which results in women overtaking men in population by middle age despite a 105:100 boy to girl ratio at birth.

== Women in history ==

Compared to men, relatively few women have had impact on history as leaders in diverse fields, but a small number of women have had enormous impact. They include [[Isabella of Spain]], [[Margaret Thatcher]], [[Elizabeth I]], [[Boudicca]], [[Catherine the Great]], [[Cleopatra]], [[Marie Curie]], [[Benazir Bhutto]], [[Golda Meir]], [[Indira Gandhi]], [[Lucretia Mott]], [[Susan B. Anthony]], [[Aung San Suu Kyi]], and [[Theresa of Calcutta]].

== Women in the Bible ==

=== Genesis ===
According to [[biblical literalism]], women, like Men, were created by God on the 6th day of [[Creation]], as told in The Book of [[Genesis]]. [[Genesis]] further elaborates that [[God]] took a rib from [[Adam]], the first Man, and from it created [[Eve]], the first woman, as a subservient companion for [[Adam]]. Also not explicitly stated in the [[Bible]], it is obvious that, due to the manner in which Eve was created, she was Adam's wife, as God does not intend for two humans in such a union to be any other way.{{fact}} Eve caused sin and suffering to come into the world when she tricked Adam into eating from The Tree of Knowledge, an act directly forbidden by God Himself. As punishment for this, God declared that women shall experience great pain in childbirth and shall always be ruled over by their husbands. <ref>Genesis 3:16</ref>

=== Biblical statements on the role of women ===
Saint Paul also has much to say on the status of women in society, most memorably that women should submit to their husbands just as the church submits to God.
<ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ephesians%205:22-24&version=9 Ephesians 5:22-24 ]</ref>
<ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Corinthians%2011:8-9;&version=9; I Corinthians 11:8-9]</ref>
<ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Corinthians%2011:4-7;&version=9; I Corinthians 11:4-7]</ref>
<ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Corinthians%2014:34-35;&version=9; I Corinthians 14:34-35]</ref>
The Bible also states that if a man sells his daughter into slavery she must consent and "not go out as the menservants do." (Exodus 21:7)

The New Testament contains many instructions regarding the role of women:
# Women are to dress modestly<ref>1 Timothy 2:9</ref><ref>Peter 3:2-6</ref>.
# Women may learn in silence, but may not be permitted to teach<ref>1 Timothy 2:11-12</ref>. Some interpreations limit this rule to the teaching of doctrine.
# Women are not permitted to speak in church<ref>1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (Spoken by Paul></ref>.
# Women are to be subservient to and follow the instructions of their husbands<ref>Ephesians 5:22-24</ref><ref>Colossians 3:18</ref><ref>Titus 2:4-5</ref><ref>1 Peter 3:1-7</ref>.

These viewpoints are not not widely accepted in first-world nations, although some individuals still adhere to them.

==References==
<references />

== Related Topics ==
[[Men]]

Talk:Bible

2007-04-09T10:32:21Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* Name */

Conservapedia talk:Is the Bible Inerrant?

2007-04-09T10:30:26Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* What's this article trying to achieve? */

== Question on the "wise men" ==

The counter-objection to "Who visited Jesus in his crib?" says, "Ah, no - sorry! Merely 'where the young child was'!".

Is this meant as a retraction? If not, perhaps it means that you've missed the point of the objection. The point is that the magi ''didn't'' visit Jesus in the manger/crib/inn, despite all those nativity scenes showing otherwise.

Firstly, the text says that they visited him "in the house". Secondly, they presumably saw the star when he was born, but spent some time travelling to Bethlehem via Jerusalem, with Herod asking them about when they saw the star. Thirdly, presumably on the basis of their answer, Herod had all the boys up to two years old. Taken together, all these clues indicate that whilst the shepherds visited the new-born Jesus, the magi visited the toddler Jesus up to two years later.

Ergo, no contradiction.

By the way, it's good to see you remove a couple of "contradictions". Keep doing that and you'll eventually have to admit that there are none! :-)

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:31, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Keep going yourself, and you'll hang yourself eventually! ;0) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:35, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
::Why do we even have this list? It's all context switching!--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 12:46, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I don't understand what you mean by "context switching".
:::I'm sure from Petrus' point of view, this article (which he created as "Bible Contradictions") is intended to show that the Bible has mistakes, so cannot be infallible.
:::From my point of view, this article is/can-be useful to show (a) that many of the common bibliosceptic attacks on the Bible are just silly, and (b) the more legitimate criticisms do have answers.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:31, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Not sure about the 'context-switching'. Personally, I'm not referring to 'contexts', but merely listing texts that appear to contradict each other. If others insist on bringing in 'contexts' to justify their objections (which usually means 'interpretations'), good luck to them - but it will merely weaken their case. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:33, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::You miss the beauty of exegesis, Petre, one can make the bible say virtually anything. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:18, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:As certain people, with their constant recourse to exegetical twisters, should have realised by now! ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:35, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::No doubt. But I wonder if they've realised that in the process they've made the Bible say virtually nothing -- it all becomes a maddening din of pseudo-hosannahs, the rumblings of a schizophrenic god and apoplectic apocalypses. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 06:07, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Especially as ''Hosanna'' means, not 'Hooray', but 'Save us now' - so they can't have shouted ''Hosanna '''to'''...'' anyone! ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:31, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Why ==
Why is there discussion going on '''in''' the article? [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 12:48, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:The only reason one may need to resolve possible contradictions of the Bible is to shore-up the belief that it needs to be taken literally, whenever possible.
:If one allows for errors in the Bible then the whole makes more than the sum of the parts.[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 12:52, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, why have an "article" which is a debate? The debate (if we really need one) should be here and later put to the article.--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 12:55, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:It's a moot point. The article was never designed to be a discussion - merely a listing of points pro and con, which is perfectly legitimate IMO. Call it an 'interactive article' if you like - but I don't see why an article shouldn't be interactive in a 'live' encyclopedia. Rather that than the uneditable, monolithic, ''ex cathedra'' pronouncements elsewhere in Conservapedia!... --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::'''Rob Pommer''': Answering alleged contradictions is not to shore up belief, but to refute bibliosceptical attacks on the Bible: "''We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God...''" (2 Corinthians 10:5, NIV). I don't follow the logic of your second point about the sum of the parts.
:::'''Rob Pommer''' and''' bill m''': I'm not comfortable with the format. I think it should be in the form of the criticism (the alleged contradiction) and an objection to it. To have an objection to the objection, and an objection to the objection to the objection , does get rather silly.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:40, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, that's true. Let's try and keep it down to an objection and a possible counter-objection wherever possible. Leave the reader to decide on the merits of that. In any case, keep it brief, and don't drag in all kinds of external commentators to try and argue the case by flattening the opposition, other than by footnote-reference. You may have noticed that ''my'' sole references are to the texts themselves. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::You used the actual texts? How quaint. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:19, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== Poor Bible exegesis offered at this ==

I believe there is very poor [[Bible exegesis]] offered at this article. I put some sources at the beginning of the article in order to give readers an alternative.

Specifically, I offered these web resources:

http://www.tektonics.org/index2.html

http://www.inerrancy.org/

http://www.christian-thinktank.com

http://www.apologeticspress.org/allegeddiscrepancies/

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Conservative, perhaps you missed that two of those sites were already used in some of the objections. But thanks for adding the other two. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:43, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::But in that case shouldn't some skeptical sources be linked, too? In its original format, the article didn't cite ''any'' critical sources - for either side. In fact, in my view, that is much the best idea. Originally it didn't have anything to do with exegesis - merely with what the texts actually say. Citing exterior sources (other than the texts themselves) merely drags in a whole 'war of the commentators' that can only lead to just as much confusion and uncertainty as before. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:50, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes indeedy they should.
:::Still missing the beauty of exigesis, though eh? I mean, think of all the really neat things Nostradamus never said but really did per the use of a non-biblical form of exegesis. Think of all of the UFO mysteries that are cleared up in the same fashion. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==Not to be nit-picky but...==
The portion:
''*Can the Sun and Moon ever appear together in the sky at the same time?''

''Psalm 136:8-9 No. God created "The sun to rule by day...The moon and stars to rule by night."
Genesis 1:16: No. God created "two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night..."''

''Objection 2: The passages in Psalms and Genesis should be taken figuratively rather than literally and thus do not mean that the Moon is always visible at night, nor that it is never visible during the day.''

I'd advise caution here unless it is your intent TO bring up the "when do we '''know''' we're ''supposed'' to take the Bible literally and when to take it figuratively" argument.
Not really a point, just an observation.--[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 09:47, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:I suppose the real issue here is that one cannot claim infallibility when one ceases to be literal. Once one wanders of into the realm of allegory and uses figurative devices "truth" becomes subjective. In other words, the Bible is either the literal truth or it's allegory, but once you allow for the latter you can lay no claim to the former. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 06:02, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::So are you suggesting that if someone you were talking to on the telephone said that "it's raining cats and dogs here", you would have no idea whether or not that was literally true? Is it not the case that metaphor, parable, analogy, etc. can be recognised by the context and/or the language, and that it is therefore possible to take literally the parts that are meant to be taken literally whilst acknowledging the existence of non-literal parts? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Most people I know don't claim to be infallible. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:Philip, your argument falls apart for several reasons. Myk has pointed out one of them: if no claim of infallibility is made or implied, there is no reason to assume same. Another is that as many literalists purport that every word of the bible is the infallible word of God, they simply can't turn around and say, "oh, that part? that's just a story". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 05:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::I couldn't actually see the point of Myk's comment. Claiming or not claiming infallibility says nothing about whether or not something is metaphor, parable, etc.
::I think you've got the wrong idea about infallibility. Christians believe that the entire Bible is inspired by God and is therefore infallible, but that means that it infallibly records people doing the wrong thing, infallibly records the lies that people told, etc. It does ''not'' mean that every word is literally true and that literary devices such as metaphor and parable are not used.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:49, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Clarity in language is important. If something is claimed to be infallible, it best be awfully clear in its language. Go up to someone who has just learned how to speak English and tell them it's raining cats and dogs, see what kind of reaction you get. Further, in biblical times a rain of cats and dogs doesn't seem that implausible (see: Plague of Frogs).

:::Literal truth of the bible means just that. Literal, not metaphorical. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:52, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::That something claimed to be infallible should be clear is your opinion, not a requirement of infallibility.
:::::We are talking about infallibility, not literalism. Despite NousEpirrhytos' comment below, they are two distinct concepts. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Myk, I think we're arguing logic with the wrong person. BTW, Phil, generally speaking infallible, inerrant and literal are used interchangeably when used by fundamentalists and evangelicals.
::::Another BTW, Phil, do you claim to speak for all Christians? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 18:45, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::I disagree that "infallible" and "inerrant" are ''generally'' used interchangeably with "literal" when used by fundamentalists and evangelicals. Perhaps some uninformed Christians use them interchangeably, but they are clearly different things. I see bibliosceptics conflating them more than I see Christians conflating them. ("Infallible" and "inerrant" may be used interchangeably, as they are very close if not identical in meaning.)
:::::Of course I don't claim to speak for all Christians. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::You are of course free to your own opinion. Unfortunately as I have seen (in print) and heard Biblethumpers using the words interchangeably, I really can't agree with you.
::::But, y'know what cracks me up, your use of "bibliosceptics", a neologism that does not mean what you think it does (look up "bibliophile" and ye shall find understanding). In any case, you seem to think that treating the bible just like one would treat any other book is a bad thing -- in reality, in casting a critical eye on books one can gain much wisdom. Alas, I suppose you're content to settle for a belief in salvation, staying far away from the tree of knowledge (after all, you might find that some things you thought to be good are evil, and those you thought to be evil, good). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 18:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== What's this article trying to achieve? ==

Actually, I think the answer to that question, as far as the original editor is concerned, is obvious. It's to discredit the Bible as the infallible Word of God. My reason for having it (as I added to it) is to demonstrate that the alleged contradictions are not in fact contradictions.

But...

Is it the intention to list every "contradiction" ever ''claimed''? Because if it is, there is no way to achieve that without making the page ridiculously large. Perhaps it is to just show a few samples? But so far there's been no discussion about what sorts of alleged contradictions should be included.

And frankly, many of the allegations are plain silly. In fact I quoted someone saying that about one of the alleged contradictions, and Petrus [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Alleged_Bible_contradictions&diff=72033&oldid=72032 removed] the comment. Fair enough, it was supposed to be an answer to the allegation, not a commentary on the allegation, so I didn't restore it. But it needs to be said somewhere. Let's look at this one a bit closer, because it epitomises the problems with the list.

Two sayings (aka proverbs) that most would be familiar with are:
* Many hands make light work.
* Too many cooks spoil the broth.
Are these two sayings contradictory? Taken literally, then yes they are. But does anyone object to them on those grounds? Of course not. Despite them probably being coined by different people at different times, the validity of both is accepted, because neither claims to be always true and both have their place. Sometimes, more helpers ease the burden on others, but at other times too many people result in them getting in each other's way.

So what are we to make of a proverb in the Bible that says, 'Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes."? Is this seriously a contradiction, or like the saying above, are both sentences true in some cases?

To claim that they are contradictory, one must:
* Ignore the fact that they are ''sayings'', not truth-claims that have no exceptions, and read the text literally. Bibliosceptics love to criticise Creationists and fundamentalists for reading the Bible literally, despite them repeatedly saying that they only do this where it was ''meant'' literally, whilst still recognising metaphors, parables, etc. Yet here we have a bibliosceptic reading the text literally in order to make a claim of a contradiction.
* Presume that the original author was so incompetent that he would write two consecutive sentences contradicting each other, apparently without realising it.
* Further presume that many others who included the book of Proverbs in the canon, or who copied it over and over, or who write commentaries on it, are also so incompetent that they never noticed the "contradiction".
* Reject these sorts of explanations and maintain that it ''is'' a contradiction, with the astounding observation that the text doesn't say "this", meaning the answer given. Well the sayings above don't say that they are both true in different circumstances either, but that is something people are simply expected to understand.

Then we have the case of the number of stables that Solomon had. Christians who believe that the Bible is infallible do not believe that all human translations and copies are infallible, but that the original autographs were (although they do believe that the copies are very accurate copies). So if they ''occasionally'' answer that an apparent contradiction is a copyist error (as in the case of the number of stables), it does ''not'' follow that the Bible is therefore not infallible, except in the mind of the bibliosceptic who is doing his best to find all the contradictions he can, perhaps to bolster his own faith. Keep in mind that the answer to that "contradiction" included a link (and remember that Petrus doesn't want to include links) that explained all that. Neither does he want the sort of long explanations that including all that in the article would entail.

I'm not saying that all claimed contradictions are silly. Some claims of contradictions are fair enough, in that they really do ''appear'' to be contradictions, and deserve to be answered. The number of stables one is an example, but the article should state the apparent contradiction, provide the answer, and leave it at that.

In summary, many claimed contradictions in the Bible are nothing more than bibliosceptics grasping at straws and applying criteria that they wouldn't apply in any other situation, in order to try and prove their viewpoint that the Bible is fallible. I don't believe that this article should waste its time on those sorts of "contradictions".

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Hmmm....shall I take the time to point out all of the fallacies of the above? Part of me would like to write a long refutation, but the wiser part knows this to be fruitless. So, I'll just give one example:
:<nowiki>*</nowiki> Many hands make light work. <nowiki>*</nowiki> Too many cooks spoil the broth. You're assuming that the statements are equal but there is a quantitative difference: yes, many hands may make the work easier but at a certain point, the people begin tripping over each other and thus, as they actually impede the work, there is a point, the ''ne plus ultra'', that tips the balance from a comfy many to a disastrous too many. No contradiction. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 05:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Thank you for supporting my point! To quote Petrus' counter-objection to the very "contradiction" I was discussing here, "'''But the text does not actually say this.'''"
:: I figured it would probably be fruitless to convince you blokes too, but I tried anyway.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::While we're on the topic:
::::"He who hesitates is lost" / "Look before you leap"
::::"Cut your losses and let your profits run" / "Buy low, sell high."
::::"Absence makes the heart grow fonder" / "Out of sight, out of mind"
::::"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again." / "Don't beat a dead horse."
:::::19:45, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Excellent examples! - in fact there are few well-known proverbs that don't also have their opposites. But then that makes the point perfectly. No given 'pair' is likely to have been produced by the same person. Their very oppositeness suggests different hands with different views, ''not a single, monolithic author''.

And no, my purpose wasn't 'to discredit the Bible as the infallible Word of God' - merely to provoke people actually to look at the words (in some cases, apparently for the first time!) and decide for themselves whether that proposition is really tenable in the light of the facts. Thus, 'to discredit ''the dogma'' that the Bible is the infallible Word of God', possibly. But about the Bible I'm perfectly neutral. It's indubitably there, and it indubitably says what it says. I merely urge that people read it through clear glass, not stained glass. It's better for the eyes, you know!--[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:45, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:Yet you appear to be reading it through the eyes of a hyper-literalist, rather than as it was meant to be understood. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

How do you know how it is "meant" to be understood? How do you know, for instance, that Genesis 1 was meant to be understood literally? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 18:54, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

...other than by reading it through stained glass? Why can't the text simply be allowed to say what it says, warts and all, without imposing your own dogmas and preconceptions on it - such as the man-made myth of God-given infallibility? Isn't this perilously close to ''biblolatry'', in direct infringement of the spirit of the second commandment? Do you honestly think the Bible needs ''your'' protection from the light of reality, let alone that of all the commentators whom Conservative seems intent on importing into the argument? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:53, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:As noted above, it is best to read the bible in a literary manner, that is to say, the same way you'd read any other book. I've always been amused by folks who dismiss Odysseus tricking the cyclops to save his men as far-fetched mythology and yet cling to the almost parallel David v Goliath story. Both stories are allegorical myths, not litteral renderings of "history". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::You determine how something is meant to be understood by the language used (e.g., does it conform to the style of poetry, narrative, etc.?), and by the culture for whom it was written. If, for example, a sentence said "The rock landed on the marquee", would you understand it to mean that the rock landed on a large tent, or on a canopy projecting out over the entrance to a large building? The correct answer depends on whether the writer was writing for an Australian or British audience, or an American audience. You can also look at how others who would know how to read it understood it, if such records exist. For example, Jesus referred to various aspects of the Genesis narrative as though it was historical fact; He didn't understand it as allegorical myth. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:48, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Precisely. The Genesis narrative was written for (and by) a people living nearly three thousand years ago, and Jesus lived two thousand years ago. That cultural difference is the whole explanation of why the narrative doesn't say, 'The Earth was formed as a result of the agglomeration of cosmic dust some 4,500 million years ago', and why Jesus didn't understand it that way: none of the concepts involved was understood at the time. (Just as well that, as a healer, he had never heard of the symptomatology of schizophrenia!) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Jesus was the Creator, so he would know, and He endorsed what Genesis said. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Well, technically, the only thing we know is that second-hand accounts claimed that Jesus endorsed what Genesis said. We ain't got nothin' from Jesus himself. Jesus didn't write anything. --[[User:ReaganLives|ReaganLives]] 08:46, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::If you want to get technical about it, the ultimate author of the Bible was God, Jesus is God, ergo Jesus is the author of the Bible, so we do have it from Jesus Himself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::I think Jesus is inerrant, therefore he couldn't have written the Bible. Too many internal consistencies. Why don't you believe Jesus is inerrant? Are you a liberal? --[[User:ReaganLives|ReaganLives]] 12:55, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I suspect that what you've typed there is not what you meant to type, but as typed, it doesn't make sense. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:40, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:Or so it's reported in the Gospels.
:Also, if you read the bible in the cultural context, something that is part of any literary reading or scholarship, you'd understand why, for example, the creation stories are written as they are. They are attempts to explain the then unknowable "whence came we?", but from different perspectives, separated in time by about 160 years. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 09:11, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::I agree that it should be understood in its cultural context; that's effectively one of the things I've been saying. But I disagree that the cultural context is that of trying to explain the unknowable. If the Bible is correct, the "unknowable" was revealed by God, thus known. I don't understand the reference to 160 years. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:20, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Then, I would suggest you indulge your curiosity in some real Bible scholarship, rather than reading only those interpretations meant to make members of the evangelical community feel more secure in their ''argumenta ad ignoratium''. I can suggest two well-respected books, based on true interdisciplinary scholarship, if you wish.
:::BTW, what's with the edit summary "Jesus knew"? -- how would you (or anyone else for that matter) know what Jesus "knew". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 16:20, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the condescending remarks. As the Creator, Jesus obviously knew how creation occurred. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:43, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Unless, of course, he wasn't and didn't. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:14, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Vero, Petre. Interesting that Philip states religious dogma as fact. Note, Philip, that I did not use the theological title "Christ" (i.e., Jesus as God), but rather used his human name, thus referring to Jesus as a man. Thus, having clarified my question, I shall ask again: how would you (or anyone else for that matter) know what Jesus "knew". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:10, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: I was stating it in a matter-of-fact way because I was answering the question of how Jesus would know. That's how He would know, and in that context it was proper to put it in that way.
:::: I fail to grasp the distinction that you are making between Jesus as God and Jesus as man, therefore my answer stands. Are you suggesting that the man Jesus was totally oblivious to what He had done as God?
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::''Who said'' Jesus is God? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:58, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::The Bible does. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:39, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::But the Koran doesn't - and the Koran is the Word of God. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 10:54, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::So? You asked who does say it, and the Bible does say it, so the Koran ''not'' saying it doesn't change that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:37, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Further proof of the need to read. I'm talking about assuming Jesus to be just a man, not a god. Try to consider that possibility...it will not harm your faith and you might even learn something in the process. Also, why not try (if you haven't, already) reading the bible without relying on exegesis or the opinions of others, there again you might learn something.
:::Obviously, I have no ken of precisely what you know or think, but it seems, based on what you've written here, that your knowledge is limited to monolithic dogma and that you might think that those of us who see the bible as a book are bereft of biblical knowledge (in the true sense, not some cosmic exegetical sense). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 10:50, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Hey, if you want to get hypothetical and propose that Jesus was not God at all, then sure, he would not have known. But why not also hypothesise that Jesus didn't exist, or that the Bible was written by Shakespeare or something? The point is that I was answering a question about how I would know how Genesis was intended to be understood, and part of my answer was to rely on what Jesus understood it to mean. By "Jesus", I mean the bloke in the New Testament who was actually God and who was actually the Creator. That's what '''I''' meant by "Jesus". The response was to ask how Jesus would know if he ''wasn't'' God. Well sure, if He wasn't God, he wouldn't know, but I was answering the question according to my understanding of who Jesus was. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:49, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::On the basis of what evidence? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:55, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::The Bible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:39, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, this discussion has gone as far as it can. The illogic displayed by Philip is a clear indication that he is not willing to learn anything, and that his lithocephalic attachment to what he "believes" will neither allow him to learn nor to debate in a rational manner. Sad, really. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:59, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::So now you accuse me of being illogical without showing that I have been illogical. Nice. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:47, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::'The Bible' (a whole library of different books, most of which don't even mention Jesus at all) is not evidence, any more than 'the police department's computer' is evidence that Joe Bloggs burgled your house. Cite the precise evidence that Jesus is God, or stop making such absurd claims as that he was the Creator (which even most traditional Christians don't believe) - ideas which, as a faithful Jew, he cannot possibly have supported himself. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:51, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::I can't see the analogy between the Bible and the police computer, but why can't the police computer contain the evidence of a burglary?
::::::Are you unaware of the verses in the Bible that say that Jesus was the Creator? I can quote them if you want, but I suspect that you already know them and reject them for some reason.
::::::Why couldn't Jesus have supported that idea?
::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:49, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Additional topic for study for Phillip: Judaism. 12:53, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Thanks for the non-answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:40, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Petrus' comment of 05:51, 8 April 2007 (EDT) shows but one example of Philip's illogic. Another example would be this sentence, "But why not also hypothesise that Jesus didn't exist, or that the Bible was written by Shakespeare or something?" This is an absurd extrapolation that has no basis in what I said, and as such is an illogical response. Also Philip, while I'm sure you're unaware of this, you should know that for nearly two millenia there have been raging debates within the Chistian community regarding to what extent and where Jesus can use his "supernaural" powers. For example -- for the crucifxion to be a valid sacrifice leading to salvation, Jesus must be all man during that period. Also, early Christianity were beset with a variety of "heresies" (litteraly "schools of thought) that, had they been adopted, would have profoundly changed your current beliefs. See ''Donatism, Manichaeism, Gnosticism, Marcionism, Montanism'' and ''Docetism''. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 07:18, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::It is a rather large extrapolation, to make a point, but it's only an extrapolation, not an example of bad logic. Even if you are correct about Jesus needing to be all man (and I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing), how does that affect what I said? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:49, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I can't think of any convincing evidence from the Bible that Jesus thought he was God, let alone the Creator - so perhaps you'd better enlighten us? Simple references will do. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 10:54, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::I hope you mean that you can't think of any references, rather than you can't think of any "convincing evidence", else I'm probably wasting my time. But here are two (both are talking about Jesus):
{{QuoteBox|In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. (John 1:1-3, NIV)}}
{{QuoteBox|For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. (Colossians 1:16, NIV)}}

:(reduce indent)Equating Jesus with the nebulous "the Word" requires exegesis based on several bad assumptions. The actor (subject) in Colossians, in both the original Greek and the English, is unclear (likely intentionally), and the verses from 1:10 through 1:20 need to be considered in order for 1:16 to be read properly: it is '''not''' a standalone sentence, it is part of a series of subordinate clauses. Yanking biblical quotes out of context is one of the causes of poor understanding and is certainly poor scholarship. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 13:05, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::And yet you have not actually demonstrated that I used them out of context or inappropriately. Would Hebrews 1:1-2 (NIV) be more acceptable?{{quoteBox|In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.}} [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:40, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::There's also Mark: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."

:::::::As for Jesus himself, there's Matthew 16:13-17, {{QuoteBox|When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.}}
:::::::How do you parse this? It's not clear to me why Jesus consistently prefers to call himself the "Son of man," and the annotation in the Oxford Annotated Bible is rather vague: "''Son of man,'' a title which Jesus used of himself, probably seemed to his listeners to carry either of two meanings: (a) that Jesus called himself a typical human being... or (b) that Jesus ... linked himself to the prophesied figure of Dan.7.13-14... Jesus nowhere fully discloses his own understanding of the term." Still, in the above passage, it seems to me that after Peter calls Jesus "the Son of the living God," Jesus ''endorses this as valid divine revelation to Peter.'' That isn't Jesus calling himself the Son of God, but isn't it awfully close?
:::::::Still, this brings up something that bothers me. When people say "the Bible says," sometimes it means "the Bible says," but quite often it means "someone ''in'' the Bible says."
:::::::For example, "the Bible" indeed says "And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights."
:::::::But "the Bible" does not say "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you." Rather, the Bible says Moses says God said this.
:::::::The problem here is whether or not everybody quoted in the Bible has equal authority. Are we allowed to make such judgements, or not? Does the Bible say "For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing" and "a living dog is better than a dead lion?" If we're allowed to say, "no, that's not God, that's just Solomon," then why aren't we allowed to say about Romans 1:26-27, "no, that's not God, that's just Paul?" If everything in the Bible is of equal authority, then why do some Bibles print the words of Christ in red? If everything in the Bible is of equal authority, then why do so few Christians obey the kosher dietary laws? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:09, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::True, one must be careful to distinguish between what the Bible is teaching and what it is simply reporting. It does include reports of incorrect information by various people. But I believe that "the Bible says" is an acceptable way of describing your example about the creatures without fins and scales, given that it is quoting God. If it was quoting Satan, or an evil king, to mention two possibilities, then it would be quite misleading to say "the Bible says" in this case. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:40, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks for sharing that tautology -- "the bible says this, so it must be true" -- and I agree that it is very troubling when arguments of this sort are presented: validation based on an original source is hardly very compelling. Basic problem is that these are written after Paul had established that Jesus was the "anointed one" -- note that the Greek Khristos is applied to both Jesus and David (among others), and the "anointed one" in Judaism ''is'' a son of man who becomes king ( a la David). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:41, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::I'm not sure what you are referring to with the tautology reference, because nobody said those precise words. But if you are referring to me, I don't believe that I said anything that amounts to that. If you think otherwise, please quote or clearly point to the precise thing I did say. However, your quote, as it stands, is not actually a tautology anyway. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:40, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

1. 'Son of God' does ''not'' mean 'God'. All Israelites were 'sons of God' ''by definition''. That's why David claims the same title at Psalm 2:7 (at the same time making it clear that it's ''by adoption''), and why Jesus was able to teach his followers to pray 'Our Father...'

2. 'The Messiah, the Son of God' seems to have been a pre-existing title at the time (cf Schonfield): it referred to the 'Son of God' (i.e. the archetypal Israelite) who was to come - the particular 'son of man' (''bar enash'' or, in Hebrew, ''ben adam'', which ''still'' means 'man' even today) referred to by the book of Daniel.

4. In your quote from the beginning of John, the 'and the Word was God' bit should almost certainly read 'and the Word was divine'. Otherwise it simply doesn't make sense in terms of the previous sentence, let alone in terms of the familiar Pharisaic doctrine of the ''logos'' (i.e. the Adam Kadmon, or man-thought-in-the-mind-of-God) that is reflected not only in the text, but in the traditional Jewish wedding service ('last in creation, first in thought').

5. Not only does the Koran not say that Jesus was God, it specifically denies that Jesus was even his son (i.e. in the normal sense of the word). So, since the Koran claims repeatedly to be the word of God, whereas the Bible doesn't claim to be (it can't have done, since it didn't exist as a book for the claim to be made at the time when it was written), it's clearly the Koran that should be believed, if anything...

6. You have told us what Paul thought about it and what John thought about it, but I asked you what ''Jesus'' thought about it. So far, you haven't told us a single word about that. Why are you being so evasive? ''Please give us convincing evidence from the Bible that Jesus thought he was God (let alone 'the Creator')''. Just the simple references will do: no need to write a novel about it.

Oh - and if you ''must'' quote the passages concerned, please use a more reputable translation than the NIV! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:57, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, thank you, Petre. Paul's opinions are nice, and without them Paulism, er Christianity might never have gotten off the ground, but they are merely Paul's opinions. Phil, you need to do a bit more reading into the logos theory (among all the other reading you really should do).
:Phil, reread what Dpbsmith wrote, the problems to which he refered and perhaps you'll understand the point. Also, if English is the best you can do, pick a better source than the NIV. Of course, I have the advantage of being able to read Greek (the language of the NT), and as a linguist I know that no translation can capture precisely what was said in the other language (especially shades of meaning and double entendres), thus I am able to compare and contrast the sources and develop a fuller understanding of the text. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 06:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Protected debate page? ==

Whats the deal with the protected debate page? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:57, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:Conservative apparently went on a "Clean up unsourced statements" trip (blocked Hoji in the process for re-inserting things - who then unblocked himself because he's so awesome), not realizing that this is not in the Main space anymore. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:02, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::I then went to delete some other unsourced stuff. But, CPAdmin1 reverted it, and I have asked him why, because this is ridiculous to the Nth degree. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:05, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== This "namespace" is a joke. It claimed people to be scholars who weren't ==

Hoji wrote to me regarding [[Conservapedia:Alleged Bible contradictions]] the following: " It is a Conservapedia: namespace, is NOT AN ARTICLE, and does NOT need citations."

I can't think of anything more detrimental to Conservapedia than to be filled with "Namespaces" (whatever those are) because people can say just about any foolish thing without backing it up.

The "contradiction" page is a monstrosity claiming people to be "critical scholars" who have no real credentials ('''Unix systems engineer'''), etc.

What's with this whole "namespace" idea?

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:13, 5 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

: The namespace means its not a real article and lets people bicker back and foreth without the threat of getting banned. Citations are not needed (unless you presume to go clean up the other Conservapedia namespace articles that lack citations). What are your credentials anyways? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Especially where the introductory remarks merely refer to what ''generally'' happens - on ''both'' sides of the argument! One almost gets the impression that ''somebody'' is afraid to have both sides stated! Such paranoia is both unworthy and unnecessary. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:58, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: *sigh* Ask first, act then. It's not quantum physics. "Namespace" = a sort of container, filled with articles. All regular articles are in the "Main" namespace (for example, [[Theory of evolution]] is in the main namespace). Article Talk pages (like [[Talk:Theory of evolution]]) are in the "Talk" namespace. Same goes for pages in the "Help" namespace (all articles starting with "Help:...") or the "Conservapedia" namespace (like this "article").
:Articles in the "Conservapedia" namespace are NOT regular articles. All debates are in it, along with a few special pages about Conservapedia itself. This "article" was moved from the "Main" namespace to the "Conservapedia" namespace - most likely BECAUSE it's not a normal article and more of a debate.
:As you may have noticed, debates fall a bit out of the normal rules - not everything must be sourced (althouth it helps). Original research and argumentation is naturally a part of a debate, so it's completely counter-intuitive to suddenly "clean up" things - you're destroying a debate archive. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:24, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::This is a prime example of why, instead of reverting blindly without even understanding the Wiki model, you should consult other editors. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:32, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==unwinable battle==
Glad to see that section removed, as it was essentially a big "so what?" Crowing that "noted evangelical scholars" (a bit of an oxymoron) signed such and such petition supporting Bible inerrancy is as valueless as a petition signed by baseball player saying they support baseball. @@ [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:22, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

=="Contradictions need to be proved"==
Looks like a long paragraph of someone's personal opinion. Is there a source somewhere that defines what a "Biblical contradiction" is? A generally accepted rulebook that says whom the "onus" is upon and so forth? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:A biblical contradiction is the same as any other contradictions, and contradictions are generally the responsibility of the speaker/writer or his/her representatives to clear up. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 16:38, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== I do not understand this argument. ==

Could someone please explain to me how anyone in their right mind could think this is a sensible argument to have? The collection of works called the bible was written over thousands of years by a load of different guys in various languages, with different agendas, different points of view, and using their limited understanding of the world as it was at the time they wrote it. Following this, bits were lost, added to, lost again, and then transcribed, translated, re-transcribed, re-translated etc. by a whole load of different guys all struggling to make sense out of a fragmented text in a different language, sno longer spoken. How on earth would anyone expect that there would not be inaccuracies and contradictions arising from that process?

... and if you claim that 'God guided the hand of the writers, translators etc...", think again.
Why on earth (or in heaven) would he bother? Wouldn't it have been much simpler to write the thing once and set it in stone for all time, and ensure that his word was preserved intact? If God actually wanted that, then that was what he would have done. Come on guys, think about it... even if you are a believer, the real point about having a bible is that it does contain inaccuracies. No believer can be 100% sure that God has not deliberately inserted inaccuracies, simply so that mankind is forced into a debate about 'higher' matters, such as his existence, what the passages actually mean, and the moral and ethical debates ensuing; non-believers of couse just say that that it's just a disparate load of stories & prejudices, to be taken with a pinch of salt.

What you cannot claim, by any sensible and logical reading of the situation, is that it is bible infallible. How on earth could it be, or more importantly, why would it be?

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 12:53, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:A very brief answer: In your first paragraph, you are drawing conclusions on the basis of premises that are not accepted by Christians who believe the Bible in inerrant, and you have not shown those premises to be true. In your second paragraph, you are claiming to know what God would think is the best thing to do, and what you consider reasonable. Perhaps He sees it differently to you. The first sentence of your third paragraph amounts to an assertion with no substance. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 13:22, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::(i) You mean that people do not believe that the bible was written over thousands of years by different authors? Where did it come from then?
:: (ii) If I cannot know the mind of God, then how can anyone? In which case how do ''you'' know what I claim about the mind of God isn't true? Surely by claiming that the bible (which you take to be the word of God) is true, ''you'' are claiming to know the mind of God, and are therefore guilty of what I stand accused.
:: (iii) I am not asserting anything in the last sentence; I am denying an assertion made by others on the basis of a logical argument carried out in the two paragraphs above.

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:42, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::# No, I agree it was written over about 2000 years by a number of different authors. But you made a lot more claims that just that.
::::# I'm not saying that nobody can know anything about the mind of God, but to claim to know the ''best'' way for God to have done something presumes that you know all the possible implications of doing it in different ways. It's like a surveyor mapping the best route for a new railway, then you come along and say that it would have been better to go a different way, not realising that the surveyor knew more about the situation than you, and the way you propose has some unstable ground along the route, or some other problem that you hadn't been aware of.
::::# You are asserting that others cannot claim the Bible to be infallible.
::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Philip, look, I'm sure you think I'm being snarky when I say this, but you really need to educate yourself. Cat's slightly off with his/her dating, but not drastically off. The Pentateuch was written over a 160-200 year span beginning about 720 BCE, with the prophetic material being written as late as 100 BCE. The NT was written between the 5th decade of the first century CE up to (possibly) as late as 120 CE, with editing going on into the 3rd century.
:::The relevancy of whether the premises are supported by bible inerrantists escapes me. History is replete with the dogmatic detritus of the denials of reality by various relious sects.
:::Cat's point re the second paragraph is correct -- you base your denial on a circular argument that only true believers of your ilk can "know the mind of god" and the rest of us are bereft of any comprehension. This is an untenable and preposterous argument, a tautology of the first magnitude.
:::What, precisely, is Cat asserting in the third paragraph? Nothing that I can see (other than, perhaps, a disagreement with previous assertions). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:40, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Some people believe that the Pentateuch was written from around 720 B.C. onwards (I know that already, it's not a lack of education on my part), but other people believe differently. If you were unaware of that, perhaps ''you'' need to educate yourself.
::::: I'm sorry that the relevance escapes you, but what you are doing is simply denigrating people who hold a different view by claiming, without evidence, that they are denying reality. How about proving your case (if you can) instead of just throwing insults?
::::: My argument was not tautologous, but perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying and hopefully my reply to CatWatcher has clarified matters.
::::: See my reply to CatWatcher for what she was asserting.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: In paragraph 3 I am contending that no-one could possibly claim that the bible is infallible, either pragmatically or theologically. Pragmatically it is a distillation of different sources which cannot in principle be expected to agree; theologically it must either be fallible or open to doubt. If it is neither, then it is both valid and indisputable. This means that God has provided us with a document which proves his existence; hence faith is not required, as we have his telephone number & address. The fact that he requires us to have faith, means that the bible, in principle must therefore either be fallible or questionable. QED.
--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 18:11, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Works for me. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 19:50, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I'm not sure that I totally follow your reasoning there, but the problem is with your definition of faith, which, biblically, is trust, based on evidence. You seem to be assuming that faith is belief held without evidence. See [http://tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html here] for a better explanation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, Philip, you've proven one of my suspicions -- you ''do'' rely on the exegesis and opinions of other insofar as they suppoort your belief system. Now, try to find, for example, a discussion of faith that is ''not'' from an apologetics site. Faith is very much the belief in things for which there is no logical basis, no physical proof, no evidence (except in the mind of a believer -- the tautology of faith). Why are you seemingly so afraid to go outside the safe realm of apologetics and look into other opnions? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 07:30, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: [[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]]:
::::: 1) Many people do, in fact claim that the Bible is infallible theologically.
::::: 2) A lesser but significant number do claim that the Bible is infallible pragmatically.
::::: 3) "If it happens, it's possible."
::::: 4) Ergo, you must be wrong when you say "no-one could possibly claim" these things.
::::: Take a look at TerryH's comments in the opening paragraphs of [[Conservapedia:Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?]] for an example of someone who takes Biblical accuracy pretty seriously. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:35, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Despite Phil's protestations, faith is defined by believing something ''without'' evidence. Faith is a feeling, often a decision, to believe in something grander than nature/science. When one is overwhelmed with religious feeling or epiphany, this is a subjective phenomenon. As most of us know, applying science to God rarely leaves either smelling right. Dawkins denies the value of the concept of ''nonoverlapping magisteria'', but it really is a useful concept, and probably more so for Theists than Atheists. I don't want someone coming after my faith with an electron microscope.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:17, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:PalMD is correct on all counts. Faith is a very personal thing, a subjective experience based as much on a longing for purpose as any active decision to believe, It is also much like a drug -- epiphantic moments trigger the same release of chemicals as most euphoria-causing drugs. There is a close affinity between the faithful and people who are substance-dependant: both need to rely on internalised experience based on an external catalyst to reach some form of temporary fulfillment or psychological rapture/ecstacy. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:29, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::No, PalMD is not correct. He says "despite [my] protestations", but has said nothing to refute the linked article which explains why faith is what I said it is. Instead, he has simply asserted without any evidence that I'm wrong. He says that it is "defined" differently, but doesn't say where it is so defined. I'll grant that ''one'' of the meanings of the word is probably the one that he uses, but it is also true that ''another'' meaning is the one I gave, and the real question in this is, which meaning are Christians using (as opposed to their detractors)? Because they are quoting the Bible in support, they are using the meaning that the Bible uses, which is what the linked article was about.
::The problem with the non-overlapping magisteria idea is that they ''do'' overlap. The Bible talks about things to do with astronomy, geology, etc.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:46, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Bible

2007-04-08T20:43:38Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* Name */

Conservapedia talk:Is the Bible Inerrant?

2007-04-08T18:41:11Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* What's this article trying to achieve? */

== Question on the "wise men" ==

The counter-objection to "Who visited Jesus in his crib?" says, "Ah, no - sorry! Merely 'where the young child was'!".

Is this meant as a retraction? If not, perhaps it means that you've missed the point of the objection. The point is that the magi ''didn't'' visit Jesus in the manger/crib/inn, despite all those nativity scenes showing otherwise.

Firstly, the text says that they visited him "in the house". Secondly, they presumably saw the star when he was born, but spent some time travelling to Bethlehem via Jerusalem, with Herod asking them about when they saw the star. Thirdly, presumably on the basis of their answer, Herod had all the boys up to two years old. Taken together, all these clues indicate that whilst the shepherds visited the new-born Jesus, the magi visited the toddler Jesus up to two years later.

Ergo, no contradiction.

By the way, it's good to see you remove a couple of "contradictions". Keep doing that and you'll eventually have to admit that there are none! :-)

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:31, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Keep going yourself, and you'll hang yourself eventually! ;0) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:35, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
::Why do we even have this list? It's all context switching!--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 12:46, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I don't understand what you mean by "context switching".
:::I'm sure from Petrus' point of view, this article (which he created as "Bible Contradictions") is intended to show that the Bible has mistakes, so cannot be infallible.
:::From my point of view, this article is/can-be useful to show (a) that many of the common bibliosceptic attacks on the Bible are just silly, and (b) the more legitimate criticisms do have answers.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:31, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Not sure about the 'context-switching'. Personally, I'm not referring to 'contexts', but merely listing texts that appear to contradict each other. If others insist on bringing in 'contexts' to justify their objections (which usually means 'interpretations'), good luck to them - but it will merely weaken their case. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:33, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::You miss the beauty of exegesis, Petre, one can make the bible say virtually anything. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:18, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:As certain people, with their constant recourse to exegetical twisters, should have realised by now! ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:35, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::No doubt. But I wonder if they've realised that in the process they've made the Bible say virtually nothing -- it all becomes a maddening din of pseudo-hosannahs, the rumblings of a schizophrenic god and apoplectic apocalypses. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 06:07, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Especially as ''Hosanna'' means, not 'Hooray', but 'Save us now' - so they can't have shouted ''Hosanna '''to'''...'' anyone! ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:31, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Why ==
Why is there discussion going on '''in''' the article? [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 12:48, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:The only reason one may need to resolve possible contradictions of the Bible is to shore-up the belief that it needs to be taken literally, whenever possible.
:If one allows for errors in the Bible then the whole makes more than the sum of the parts.[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 12:52, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, why have an "article" which is a debate? The debate (if we really need one) should be here and later put to the article.--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 12:55, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:It's a moot point. The article was never designed to be a discussion - merely a listing of points pro and con, which is perfectly legitimate IMO. Call it an 'interactive article' if you like - but I don't see why an article shouldn't be interactive in a 'live' encyclopedia. Rather that than the uneditable, monolithic, ''ex cathedra'' pronouncements elsewhere in Conservapedia!... --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::'''Rob Pommer''': Answering alleged contradictions is not to shore up belief, but to refute bibliosceptical attacks on the Bible: "''We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God...''" (2 Corinthians 10:5, NIV). I don't follow the logic of your second point about the sum of the parts.
:::'''Rob Pommer''' and''' bill m''': I'm not comfortable with the format. I think it should be in the form of the criticism (the alleged contradiction) and an objection to it. To have an objection to the objection, and an objection to the objection to the objection , does get rather silly.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:40, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, that's true. Let's try and keep it down to an objection and a possible counter-objection wherever possible. Leave the reader to decide on the merits of that. In any case, keep it brief, and don't drag in all kinds of external commentators to try and argue the case by flattening the opposition, other than by footnote-reference. You may have noticed that ''my'' sole references are to the texts themselves. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::You used the actual texts? How quaint. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:19, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== Poor Bible exegesis offered at this ==

I believe there is very poor [[Bible exegesis]] offered at this article. I put some sources at the beginning of the article in order to give readers an alternative.

Specifically, I offered these web resources:

http://www.tektonics.org/index2.html

http://www.inerrancy.org/

http://www.christian-thinktank.com

http://www.apologeticspress.org/allegeddiscrepancies/

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Conservative, perhaps you missed that two of those sites were already used in some of the objections. But thanks for adding the other two. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:43, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::But in that case shouldn't some skeptical sources be linked, too? In its original format, the article didn't cite ''any'' critical sources - for either side. In fact, in my view, that is much the best idea. Originally it didn't have anything to do with exegesis - merely with what the texts actually say. Citing exterior sources (other than the texts themselves) merely drags in a whole 'war of the commentators' that can only lead to just as much confusion and uncertainty as before. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:50, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes indeedy they should.
:::Still missing the beauty of exigesis, though eh? I mean, think of all the really neat things Nostradamus never said but really did per the use of a non-biblical form of exegesis. Think of all of the UFO mysteries that are cleared up in the same fashion. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==Not to be nit-picky but...==
The portion:
''*Can the Sun and Moon ever appear together in the sky at the same time?''

''Psalm 136:8-9 No. God created "The sun to rule by day...The moon and stars to rule by night."
Genesis 1:16: No. God created "two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night..."''

''Objection 2: The passages in Psalms and Genesis should be taken figuratively rather than literally and thus do not mean that the Moon is always visible at night, nor that it is never visible during the day.''

I'd advise caution here unless it is your intent TO bring up the "when do we '''know''' we're ''supposed'' to take the Bible literally and when to take it figuratively" argument.
Not really a point, just an observation.--[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 09:47, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:I suppose the real issue here is that one cannot claim infallibility when one ceases to be literal. Once one wanders of into the realm of allegory and uses figurative devices "truth" becomes subjective. In other words, the Bible is either the literal truth or it's allegory, but once you allow for the latter you can lay no claim to the former. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 06:02, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::So are you suggesting that if someone you were talking to on the telephone said that "it's raining cats and dogs here", you would have no idea whether or not that was literally true? Is it not the case that metaphor, parable, analogy, etc. can be recognised by the context and/or the language, and that it is therefore possible to take literally the parts that are meant to be taken literally whilst acknowledging the existence of non-literal parts? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Most people I know don't claim to be infallible. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:Philip, your argument falls apart for several reasons. Myk has pointed out one of them: if no claim of infallibility is made or implied, there is no reason to assume same. Another is that as many literalists purport that every word of the bible is the infallible word of God, they simply can't turn around and say, "oh, that part? that's just a story". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 05:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::I couldn't actually see the point of Myk's comment. Claiming or not claiming infallibility says nothing about whether or not something is metaphor, parable, etc.
::I think you've got the wrong idea about infallibility. Christians believe that the entire Bible is inspired by God and is therefore infallible, but that means that it infallibly records people doing the wrong thing, infallibly records the lies that people told, etc. It does ''not'' mean that every word is literally true and that literary devices such as metaphor and parable are not used.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:49, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Clarity in language is important. If something is claimed to be infallible, it best be awfully clear in its language. Go up to someone who has just learned how to speak English and tell them it's raining cats and dogs, see what kind of reaction you get. Further, in biblical times a rain of cats and dogs doesn't seem that implausible (see: Plague of Frogs).

:::Literal truth of the bible means just that. Literal, not metaphorical. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:52, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::That something claimed to be infallible should be clear is your opinion, not a requirement of infallibility.
:::::We are talking about infallibility, not literalism. Despite NousEpirrhytos' comment below, they are two distinct concepts. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Myk, I think we're arguing logic with the wrong person. BTW, Phil, generally speaking infallible, inerrant and literal are used interchangeably when used by fundamentalists and evangelicals.
::::Another BTW, Phil, do you claim to speak for all Christians? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 18:45, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::I disagree that "infallible" and "inerrant" are ''generally'' used interchangeably with "literal" when used by fundamentalists and evangelicals. Perhaps some uninformed Christians use them interchangeably, but they are clearly different things. I see bibliosceptics conflating them more than I see Christians conflating them. ("Infallible" and "inerrant" may be used interchangeably, as they are very close if not identical in meaning.)
:::::Of course I don't claim to speak for all Christians. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::You are of course free to your own opinion. Unfortunately as I have seen (in print) and heard Biblethumpers using the words interchangeably, I really can't agree with you.
::::But, y'know what cracks me up, your use of "bibliosceptics", a neologism that does not mean what you think it does (look up "bibliophile" and ye shall find understanding). In any case, you seem to think that treating the bible just like one would treat any other book is a bad thing -- in reality, in casting a critical eye on books one can gain much wisdom. Alas, I suppose you're content to settle for a belief in salvation, staying far away from the tree of knowledge (after all, you might find that some things you thought to be good are evil, and those you thought to be evil, good). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 18:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== What's this article trying to achieve? ==

Actually, I think the answer to that question, as far as the original editor is concerned, is obvious. It's to discredit the Bible as the infallible Word of God. My reason for having it (as I added to it) is to demonstrate that the alleged contradictions are not in fact contradictions.

But...

Is it the intention to list every "contradiction" ever ''claimed''? Because if it is, there is no way to achieve that without making the page ridiculously large. Perhaps it is to just show a few samples? But so far there's been no discussion about what sorts of alleged contradictions should be included.

And frankly, many of the allegations are plain silly. In fact I quoted someone saying that about one of the alleged contradictions, and Petrus [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Alleged_Bible_contradictions&diff=72033&oldid=72032 removed] the comment. Fair enough, it was supposed to be an answer to the allegation, not a commentary on the allegation, so I didn't restore it. But it needs to be said somewhere. Let's look at this one a bit closer, because it epitomises the problems with the list.

Two sayings (aka proverbs) that most would be familiar with are:
* Many hands make light work.
* Too many cooks spoil the broth.
Are these two sayings contradictory? Taken literally, then yes they are. But does anyone object to them on those grounds? Of course not. Despite them probably being coined by different people at different times, the validity of both is accepted, because neither claims to be always true and both have their place. Sometimes, more helpers ease the burden on others, but at other times too many people result in them getting in each other's way.

So what are we to make of a proverb in the Bible that says, 'Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes."? Is this seriously a contradiction, or like the saying above, are both sentences true in some cases?

To claim that they are contradictory, one must:
* Ignore the fact that they are ''sayings'', not truth-claims that have no exceptions, and read the text literally. Bibliosceptics love to criticise Creationists and fundamentalists for reading the Bible literally, despite them repeatedly saying that they only do this where it was ''meant'' literally, whilst still recognising metaphors, parables, etc. Yet here we have a bibliosceptic reading the text literally in order to make a claim of a contradiction.
* Presume that the original author was so incompetent that he would write two consecutive sentences contradicting each other, apparently without realising it.
* Further presume that many others who included the book of Proverbs in the canon, or who copied it over and over, or who write commentaries on it, are also so incompetent that they never noticed the "contradiction".
* Reject these sorts of explanations and maintain that it ''is'' a contradiction, with the astounding observation that the text doesn't say "this", meaning the answer given. Well the sayings above don't say that they are both true in different circumstances either, but that is something people are simply expected to understand.

Then we have the case of the number of stables that Solomon had. Christians who believe that the Bible is infallible do not believe that all human translations and copies are infallible, but that the original autographs were (although they do believe that the copies are very accurate copies). So if they ''occasionally'' answer that an apparent contradiction is a copyist error (as in the case of the number of stables), it does ''not'' follow that the Bible is therefore not infallible, except in the mind of the bibliosceptic who is doing his best to find all the contradictions he can, perhaps to bolster his own faith. Keep in mind that the answer to that "contradiction" included a link (and remember that Petrus doesn't want to include links) that explained all that. Neither does he want the sort of long explanations that including all that in the article would entail.

I'm not saying that all claimed contradictions are silly. Some claims of contradictions are fair enough, in that they really do ''appear'' to be contradictions, and deserve to be answered. The number of stables one is an example, but the article should state the apparent contradiction, provide the answer, and leave it at that.

In summary, many claimed contradictions in the Bible are nothing more than bibliosceptics grasping at straws and applying criteria that they wouldn't apply in any other situation, in order to try and prove their viewpoint that the Bible is fallible. I don't believe that this article should waste its time on those sorts of "contradictions".

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Hmmm....shall I take the time to point out all of the fallacies of the above? Part of me would like to write a long refutation, but the wiser part knows this to be fruitless. So, I'll just give one example:
:<nowiki>*</nowiki> Many hands make light work. <nowiki>*</nowiki> Too many cooks spoil the broth. You're assuming that the statements are equal but there is a quantitative difference: yes, many hands may make the work easier but at a certain point, the people begin tripping over each other and thus, as they actually impede the work, there is a point, the ''ne plus ultra'', that tips the balance from a comfy many to a disastrous too many. No contradiction. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 05:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Thank you for supporting my point! To quote Petrus' counter-objection to the very "contradiction" I was discussing here, "'''But the text does not actually say this.'''"
:: I figured it would probably be fruitless to convince you blokes too, but I tried anyway.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::While we're on the topic:
::::"He who hesitates is lost" / "Look before you leap"
::::"Cut your losses and let your profits run" / "Buy low, sell high."
::::"Absence makes the heart grow fonder" / "Out of sight, out of mind"
::::"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again." / "Don't beat a dead horse."
:::::19:45, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Excellent examples! - in fact there are few well-known proverbs that don't also have their opposites. But then that makes the point perfectly. No given 'pair' is likely to have been produced by the same person. Their very oppositeness suggests different hands with different views, ''not a single, monolithic author''.

And no, my purpose wasn't 'to discredit the Bible as the infallible Word of God' - merely to provoke people actually to look at the words (in some cases, apparently for the first time!) and decide for themselves whether that proposition is really tenable in the light of the facts. Thus, 'to discredit ''the dogma'' that the Bible is the infallible Word of God', possibly. But about the Bible I'm perfectly neutral. It's indubitably there, and it indubitably says what it says. I merely urge that people read it through clear glass, not stained glass. It's better for the eyes, you know!--[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:45, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:Yet you appear to be reading it through the eyes of a hyper-literalist, rather than as it was meant to be understood. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

How do you know how it is "meant" to be understood? How do you know, for instance, that Genesis 1 was meant to be understood literally? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 18:54, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

...other than by reading it through stained glass? Why can't the text simply be allowed to say what it says, warts and all, without imposing your own dogmas and preconceptions on it - such as the man-made myth of God-given infallibility? Isn't this perilously close to ''biblolatry'', in direct infringement of the spirit of the second commandment? Do you honestly think the Bible needs ''your'' protection from the light of reality, let alone that of all the commentators whom Conservative seems intent on importing into the argument? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:53, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:As noted above, it is best to read the bible in a literary manner, that is to say, the same way you'd read any other book. I've always been amused by folks who dismiss Odysseus tricking the cyclops to save his men as far-fetched mythology and yet cling to the almost parallel David v Goliath story. Both stories are allegorical myths, not litteral renderings of "history". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::You determine how something is meant to be understood by the language used (e.g., does it conform to the style of poetry, narrative, etc.?), and by the culture for whom it was written. If, for example, a sentence said "The rock landed on the marquee", would you understand it to mean that the rock landed on a large tent, or on a canopy projecting out over the entrance to a large building? The correct answer depends on whether the writer was writing for an Australian or British audience, or an American audience. You can also look at how others who would know how to read it understood it, if such records exist. For example, Jesus referred to various aspects of the Genesis narrative as though it was historical fact; He didn't understand it as allegorical myth. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:48, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Precisely. The Genesis narrative was written for (and by) a people living nearly three thousand years ago, and Jesus lived two thousand years ago. That cultural difference is the whole explanation of why the narrative doesn't say, 'The Earth was formed as a result of the agglomeration of cosmic dust some 4,500 million years ago', and why Jesus didn't understand it that way: none of the concepts involved was understood at the time. (Just as well that, as a healer, he had never heard of the symptomatology of schizophrenia!) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Jesus was the Creator, so he would know, and He endorsed what Genesis said. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Well, technically, the only thing we know is that second-hand accounts claimed that Jesus endorsed what Genesis said. We ain't got nothin' from Jesus himself. Jesus didn't write anything. --[[User:ReaganLives|ReaganLives]] 08:46, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::If you want to get technical about it, the ultimate author of the Bible was God, Jesus is God, ergo Jesus is the author of the Bible, so we do have it from Jesus Himself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::I think Jesus is inerrant, therefore he couldn't have written the Bible. Too many internal consistencies. Why don't you believe Jesus is inerrant? Are you a liberal? --[[User:ReaganLives|ReaganLives]] 12:55, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Or so it's reported in the Gospels.
:Also, if you read the bible in the cultural context, something that is part of any literary reading or scholarship, you'd understand why, for example, the creation stories are written as they are. They are attempts to explain the then unknowable "whence came we?", but from different perspectives, separated in time by about 160 years. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 09:11, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::I agree that it should be understood in its cultural context; that's effectively one of the things I've been saying. But I disagree that the cultural context is that of trying to explain the unknowable. If the Bible is correct, the "unknowable" was revealed by God, thus known. I don't understand the reference to 160 years. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:20, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Then, I would suggest you indulge your curiosity in some real Bible scholarship, rather than reading only those interpretations meant to make members of the evangelical community feel more secure in their ''argumenta ad ignoratium''. I can suggest two well-respected books, based on true interdisciplinary scholarship, if you wish.
:::BTW, what's with the edit summary "Jesus knew"? -- how would you (or anyone else for that matter) know what Jesus "knew". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 16:20, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the condescending remarks. As the Creator, Jesus obviously knew how creation occurred. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:43, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Unless, of course, he wasn't and didn't. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:14, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Vero, Petre. Interesting that Philip states religious dogma as fact. Note, Philip, that I did not use the theological title "Christ" (i.e., Jesus as God), but rather used his human name, thus referring to Jesus as a man. Thus, having clarified my question, I shall ask again: how would you (or anyone else for that matter) know what Jesus "knew". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:10, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: I was stating it in a matter-of-fact way because I was answering the question of how Jesus would know. That's how He would know, and in that context it was proper to put it in that way.
:::: I fail to grasp the distinction that you are making between Jesus as God and Jesus as man, therefore my answer stands. Are you suggesting that the man Jesus was totally oblivious to what He had done as God?
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::''Who said'' Jesus is God? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:58, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::The Bible does. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:39, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::But the Koran doesn't - and the Koran is the Word of God. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 10:54, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::So? You asked who does say it, and the Bible does say it, so the Koran ''not'' saying it doesn't change that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:37, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Further proof of the need to read. I'm talking about assuming Jesus to be just a man, not a god. Try to consider that possibility...it will not harm your faith and you might even learn something in the process. Also, why not try (if you haven't, already) reading the bible without relying on exegesis or the opinions of others, there again you might learn something.
:::Obviously, I have no ken of precisely what you know or think, but it seems, based on what you've written here, that your knowledge is limited to monolithic dogma and that you might think that those of us who see the bible as a book are bereft of biblical knowledge (in the true sense, not some cosmic exegetical sense). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 10:50, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Hey, if you want to get hypothetical and propose that Jesus was not God at all, then sure, he would not have known. But why not also hypothesise that Jesus didn't exist, or that the Bible was written by Shakespeare or something? The point is that I was answering a question about how I would know how Genesis was intended to be understood, and part of my answer was to rely on what Jesus understood it to mean. By "Jesus", I mean the bloke in the New Testament who was actually God and who was actually the Creator. That's what '''I''' meant by "Jesus". The response was to ask how Jesus would know if he ''wasn't'' God. Well sure, if He wasn't God, he wouldn't know, but I was answering the question according to my understanding of who Jesus was. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:49, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::On the basis of what evidence? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:55, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::The Bible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:39, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, this discussion has gone as far as it can. The illogic displayed by Philip is a clear indication that he is not willing to learn anything, and that his lithocephalic attachment to what he "believes" will neither allow him to learn nor to debate in a rational manner. Sad, really. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:59, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::So now you accuse me of being illogical without showing that I have been illogical. Nice. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:47, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::'The Bible' (a whole library of different books, most of which don't even mention Jesus at all) is not evidence, any more than 'the police department's computer' is evidence that Joe Bloggs burgled your house. Cite the precise evidence that Jesus is God, or stop making such absurd claims as that he was the Creator (which even most traditional Christians don't believe) - ideas which, as a faithful Jew, he cannot possibly have supported himself. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:51, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::I can't see the analogy between the Bible and the police computer, but why can't the police computer contain the evidence of a burglary?
::::::Are you unaware of the verses in the Bible that say that Jesus was the Creator? I can quote them if you want, but I suspect that you already know them and reject them for some reason.
::::::Why couldn't Jesus have supported that idea?
::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:49, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Additional topic for study for Phillip: Judaism. 12:53, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Petrus' comment of 05:51, 8 April 2007 (EDT) shows but one example of Philip's illogic. Another example would be this sentence, "But why not also hypothesise that Jesus didn't exist, or that the Bible was written by Shakespeare or something?" This is an absurd extrapolation that has no basis in what I said, and as such is an illogical response. Also Philip, while I'm sure you're unaware of this, you should know that for nearly two millenia there have been raging debates within the Chistian community regarding to what extent and where Jesus can use his "supernaural" powers. For example -- for the crucifxion to be a valid sacrifice leading to salvation, Jesus must be all man during that period. Also, early Christianity were beset with a variety of "heresies" (litteraly "schools of thought) that, had they been adopted, would have profoundly changed your current beliefs. See ''Donatism, Manichaeism, Gnosticism, Marcionism, Montanism'' and ''Docetism''. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 07:18, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::It is a rather large extrapolation, to make a point, but it's only an extrapolation, not an example of bad logic. Even if you are correct about Jesus needing to be all man (and I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing), how does that affect what I said? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:49, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I can't think of any convincing evidence from the Bible that Jesus thought he was God, let alone the Creator - so perhaps you'd better enlighten us? Simple references will do. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 10:54, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::I hope you mean that you can't think of any references, rather than you can't think of any "convincing evidence", else I'm probably wasting my time. But here are two (both are talking about Jesus):
{{QuoteBox|In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. (John 1:1-3, NIV)}}
{{QuoteBox|For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. (Colossians 1:16, NIV)}}

:(reduce indent)Equating Jesus with the nebulous "the Word" requires exegesis based on several bad assumptions. The actor (subject) in Colossians, in both the original Greek and the English, is unclear (likely intentionally), and the verses from 1:10 through 1:20 need to be considered in order for 1:16 to be read properly: it is '''not''' a standalone sentence, it is part of a series of subordinate clauses. Yanking biblical quotes out of context is one of the causes of poor understanding and is certainly poor scholarship. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 13:05, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::There's also Mark: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."

:::::::As for Jesus himself, there's Matthew 16:13-17, {{QuoteBox|When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.}}
:::::::How do you parse this? It's not clear to me why Jesus consistently prefers to call himself the "Son of man," and the annotation in the Oxford Annotated Bible is rather vague: "''Son of man,'' a title which Jesus used of himself, probably seemed to his listeners to carry either of two meanings: (a) that Jesus called himself a typical human being... or (b) that Jesus ... linked himself to the prophesied figure of Dan.7.13-14... Jesus nowhere fully discloses his own understanding of the term." Still, in the above passage, it seems to me that after Peter calls Jesus "the Son of the living God," Jesus ''endorses this as valid divine revelation to Peter.'' That isn't Jesus calling himself the Son of God, but isn't it awfully close?
:::::::Still, this brings up something that bothers me. When people say "the Bible says," sometimes it means "the Bible says," but quite often it means "someone ''in'' the Bible says."
:::::::For example, "the Bible" indeed says "And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights."
:::::::But "the Bible" does not say "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you." Rather, the Bible says Moses says God said this.
:::::::The problem here is whether or not everybody quoted in the Bible has equal authority. Are we allowed to make such judgements, or not? Does the Bible say "For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing" and "a living dog is better than a dead lion?" If we're allowed to say, "no, that's not God, that's just Solomon," then why aren't we allowed to say about Romans 1:26-27, "no, that's not God, that's just Paul?" If everything in the Bible is of equal authority, then why do some Bibles print the words of Christ in red? If everything in the Bible is of equal authority, then why do so few Christians obey the kosher dietary laws? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:09, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks for sharing that tautology -- "the bible says this, so it must be true" -- and I agree that it is very troubling when arguments of this sort are presented: validation based on an original source is hardly very compelling. Basic problem is that these are written after Paul had established that Jesus was the "anointed one" -- note that the Greek Khristos is applied to both Jesus and David (among others), and the "anointed one" in Judaism ''is'' a son of man who becomes king ( a la David). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:41, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

== Protected debate page? ==

Whats the deal with the protected debate page? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:57, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:Conservative apparently went on a "Clean up unsourced statements" trip (blocked Hoji in the process for re-inserting things - who then unblocked himself because he's so awesome), not realizing that this is not in the Main space anymore. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:02, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::I then went to delete some other unsourced stuff. But, CPAdmin1 reverted it, and I have asked him why, because this is ridiculous to the Nth degree. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:05, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== This "namespace" is a joke. It claimed people to be scholars who weren't ==

Hoji wrote to me regarding [[Conservapedia:Alleged Bible contradictions]] the following: " It is a Conservapedia: namespace, is NOT AN ARTICLE, and does NOT need citations."

I can't think of anything more detrimental to Conservapedia than to be filled with "Namespaces" (whatever those are) because people can say just about any foolish thing without backing it up.

The "contradiction" page is a monstrosity claiming people to be "critical scholars" who have no real credentials ('''Unix systems engineer'''), etc.

What's with this whole "namespace" idea?

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:13, 5 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

: The namespace means its not a real article and lets people bicker back and foreth without the threat of getting banned. Citations are not needed (unless you presume to go clean up the other Conservapedia namespace articles that lack citations). What are your credentials anyways? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Especially where the introductory remarks merely refer to what ''generally'' happens - on ''both'' sides of the argument! One almost gets the impression that ''somebody'' is afraid to have both sides stated! Such paranoia is both unworthy and unnecessary. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:58, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: *sigh* Ask first, act then. It's not quantum physics. "Namespace" = a sort of container, filled with articles. All regular articles are in the "Main" namespace (for example, [[Theory of evolution]] is in the main namespace). Article Talk pages (like [[Talk:Theory of evolution]]) are in the "Talk" namespace. Same goes for pages in the "Help" namespace (all articles starting with "Help:...") or the "Conservapedia" namespace (like this "article").
:Articles in the "Conservapedia" namespace are NOT regular articles. All debates are in it, along with a few special pages about Conservapedia itself. This "article" was moved from the "Main" namespace to the "Conservapedia" namespace - most likely BECAUSE it's not a normal article and more of a debate.
:As you may have noticed, debates fall a bit out of the normal rules - not everything must be sourced (althouth it helps). Original research and argumentation is naturally a part of a debate, so it's completely counter-intuitive to suddenly "clean up" things - you're destroying a debate archive. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:24, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::This is a prime example of why, instead of reverting blindly without even understanding the Wiki model, you should consult other editors. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:32, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==unwinable battle==
Glad to see that section removed, as it was essentially a big "so what?" Crowing that "noted evangelical scholars" (a bit of an oxymoron) signed such and such petition supporting Bible inerrancy is as valueless as a petition signed by baseball player saying they support baseball. @@ [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:22, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

=="Contradictions need to be proved"==
Looks like a long paragraph of someone's personal opinion. Is there a source somewhere that defines what a "Biblical contradiction" is? A generally accepted rulebook that says whom the "onus" is upon and so forth? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:A biblical contradiction is the same as any other contradictions, and contradictions are generally the responsibility of the speaker/writer or his/her representatives to clear up. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 16:38, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== I do not understand this argument. ==

Could someone please explain to me how anyone in their right mind could think this is a sensible argument to have? The collection of works called the bible was written over thousands of years by a load of different guys in various languages, with different agendas, different points of view, and using their limited understanding of the world as it was at the time they wrote it. Following this, bits were lost, added to, lost again, and then transcribed, translated, re-transcribed, re-translated etc. by a whole load of different guys all struggling to make sense out of a fragmented text in a different language, sno longer spoken. How on earth would anyone expect that there would not be inaccuracies and contradictions arising from that process?

... and if you claim that 'God guided the hand of the writers, translators etc...", think again.
Why on earth (or in heaven) would he bother? Wouldn't it have been much simpler to write the thing once and set it in stone for all time, and ensure that his word was preserved intact? If God actually wanted that, then that was what he would have done. Come on guys, think about it... even if you are a believer, the real point about having a bible is that it does contain inaccuracies. No believer can be 100% sure that God has not deliberately inserted inaccuracies, simply so that mankind is forced into a debate about 'higher' matters, such as his existence, what the passages actually mean, and the moral and ethical debates ensuing; non-believers of couse just say that that it's just a disparate load of stories & prejudices, to be taken with a pinch of salt.

What you cannot claim, by any sensible and logical reading of the situation, is that it is bible infallible. How on earth could it be, or more importantly, why would it be?

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 12:53, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:A very brief answer: In your first paragraph, you are drawing conclusions on the basis of premises that are not accepted by Christians who believe the Bible in inerrant, and you have not shown those premises to be true. In your second paragraph, you are claiming to know what God would think is the best thing to do, and what you consider reasonable. Perhaps He sees it differently to you. The first sentence of your third paragraph amounts to an assertion with no substance. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 13:22, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::(i) You mean that people do not believe that the bible was written over thousands of years by different authors? Where did it come from then?
:: (ii) If I cannot know the mind of God, then how can anyone? In which case how do ''you'' know what I claim about the mind of God isn't true? Surely by claiming that the bible (which you take to be the word of God) is true, ''you'' are claiming to know the mind of God, and are therefore guilty of what I stand accused.
:: (iii) I am not asserting anything in the last sentence; I am denying an assertion made by others on the basis of a logical argument carried out in the two paragraphs above.

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:42, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::# No, I agree it was written over about 2000 years by a number of different authors. But you made a lot more claims that just that.
::::# I'm not saying that nobody can know anything about the mind of God, but to claim to know the ''best'' way for God to have done something presumes that you know all the possible implications of doing it in different ways. It's like a surveyor mapping the best route for a new railway, then you come along and say that it would have been better to go a different way, not realising that the surveyor knew more about the situation than you, and the way you propose has some unstable ground along the route, or some other problem that you hadn't been aware of.
::::# You are asserting that others cannot claim the Bible to be infallible.
::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Philip, look, I'm sure you think I'm being snarky when I say this, but you really need to educate yourself. Cat's slightly off with his/her dating, but not drastically off. The Pentateuch was written over a 160-200 year span beginning about 720 BCE, with the prophetic material being written as late as 100 BCE. The NT was written between the 5th decade of the first century CE up to (possibly) as late as 120 CE, with editing going on into the 3rd century.
:::The relevancy of whether the premises are supported by bible inerrantists escapes me. History is replete with the dogmatic detritus of the denials of reality by various relious sects.
:::Cat's point re the second paragraph is correct -- you base your denial on a circular argument that only true believers of your ilk can "know the mind of god" and the rest of us are bereft of any comprehension. This is an untenable and preposterous argument, a tautology of the first magnitude.
:::What, precisely, is Cat asserting in the third paragraph? Nothing that I can see (other than, perhaps, a disagreement with previous assertions). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:40, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Some people believe that the Pentateuch was written from around 720 B.C. onwards (I know that already, it's not a lack of education on my part), but other people believe differently. If you were unaware of that, perhaps ''you'' need to educate yourself.
::::: I'm sorry that the relevance escapes you, but what you are doing is simply denigrating people who hold a different view by claiming, without evidence, that they are denying reality. How about proving your case (if you can) instead of just throwing insults?
::::: My argument was not tautologous, but perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying and hopefully my reply to CatWatcher has clarified matters.
::::: See my reply to CatWatcher for what she was asserting.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: In paragraph 3 I am contending that no-one could possibly claim that the bible is infallible, either pragmatically or theologically. Pragmatically it is a distillation of different sources which cannot in principle be expected to agree; theologically it must either be fallible or open to doubt. If it is neither, then it is both valid and indisputable. This means that God has provided us with a document which proves his existence; hence faith is not required, as we have his telephone number & address. The fact that he requires us to have faith, means that the bible, in principle must therefore either be fallible or questionable. QED.
--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 18:11, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Works for me. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 19:50, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I'm not sure that I totally follow your reasoning there, but the problem is with your definition of faith, which, biblically, is trust, based on evidence. You seem to be assuming that faith is belief held without evidence. See [http://tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html here] for a better explanation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, Philip, you've proven one of my suspicions -- you ''do'' rely on the exegesis and opinions of other insofar as they suppoort your belief system. Now, try to find, for example, a discussion of faith that is ''not'' from an apologetics site. Faith is very much the belief in things for which there is no logical basis, no physical proof, no evidence (except in the mind of a believer -- the tautology of faith). Why are you seemingly so afraid to go outside the safe realm of apologetics and look into other opnions? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 07:30, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: [[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]]:
::::: 1) Many people do, in fact claim that the Bible is infallible theologically.
::::: 2) A lesser but significant number do claim that the Bible is infallible pragmatically.
::::: 3) "If it happens, it's possible."
::::: 4) Ergo, you must be wrong when you say "no-one could possibly claim" these things.
::::: Take a look at TerryH's comments in the opening paragraphs of [[Conservapedia:Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?]] for an example of someone who takes Biblical accuracy pretty seriously. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:35, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Despite Phil's protestations, faith is defined by believing something ''without'' evidence. Faith is a feeling, often a decision, to believe in something grander than nature/science. When one is overwhelmed with religious feeling or epiphany, this is a subjective phenomenon. As most of us know, applying science to God rarely leaves either smelling right. Dawkins denies the value of the concept of ''nonoverlapping magisteria'', but it really is a useful concept, and probably more so for Theists than Atheists. I don't want someone coming after my faith with an electron microscope.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:17, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:PalMD is correct on all counts. Faith is a very personal thing, a subjective experience based as much on a longing for purpose as any active decision to believe, It is also much like a drug -- epiphantic moments trigger the same release of chemicals as most euphoria-causing drugs. There is a close affinity between the faithful and people who are substance-dependant: both need to rely on internalised experience based on an external catalyst to reach some form of temporary fulfillment or psychological rapture/ecstacy. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:29, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Is the Bible Inerrant?

2007-04-08T18:32:44Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* What's this article trying to achieve? */ restore chronological integrity -- stop interposting

== Question on the "wise men" ==

The counter-objection to "Who visited Jesus in his crib?" says, "Ah, no - sorry! Merely 'where the young child was'!".

Is this meant as a retraction? If not, perhaps it means that you've missed the point of the objection. The point is that the magi ''didn't'' visit Jesus in the manger/crib/inn, despite all those nativity scenes showing otherwise.

Firstly, the text says that they visited him "in the house". Secondly, they presumably saw the star when he was born, but spent some time travelling to Bethlehem via Jerusalem, with Herod asking them about when they saw the star. Thirdly, presumably on the basis of their answer, Herod had all the boys up to two years old. Taken together, all these clues indicate that whilst the shepherds visited the new-born Jesus, the magi visited the toddler Jesus up to two years later.

Ergo, no contradiction.

By the way, it's good to see you remove a couple of "contradictions". Keep doing that and you'll eventually have to admit that there are none! :-)

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:31, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Keep going yourself, and you'll hang yourself eventually! ;0) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:35, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
::Why do we even have this list? It's all context switching!--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 12:46, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I don't understand what you mean by "context switching".
:::I'm sure from Petrus' point of view, this article (which he created as "Bible Contradictions") is intended to show that the Bible has mistakes, so cannot be infallible.
:::From my point of view, this article is/can-be useful to show (a) that many of the common bibliosceptic attacks on the Bible are just silly, and (b) the more legitimate criticisms do have answers.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:31, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Not sure about the 'context-switching'. Personally, I'm not referring to 'contexts', but merely listing texts that appear to contradict each other. If others insist on bringing in 'contexts' to justify their objections (which usually means 'interpretations'), good luck to them - but it will merely weaken their case. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:33, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::You miss the beauty of exegesis, Petre, one can make the bible say virtually anything. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:18, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:As certain people, with their constant recourse to exegetical twisters, should have realised by now! ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:35, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::No doubt. But I wonder if they've realised that in the process they've made the Bible say virtually nothing -- it all becomes a maddening din of pseudo-hosannahs, the rumblings of a schizophrenic god and apoplectic apocalypses. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 06:07, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Especially as ''Hosanna'' means, not 'Hooray', but 'Save us now' - so they can't have shouted ''Hosanna '''to'''...'' anyone! ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:31, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Why ==
Why is there discussion going on '''in''' the article? [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 12:48, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:The only reason one may need to resolve possible contradictions of the Bible is to shore-up the belief that it needs to be taken literally, whenever possible.
:If one allows for errors in the Bible then the whole makes more than the sum of the parts.[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 12:52, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, why have an "article" which is a debate? The debate (if we really need one) should be here and later put to the article.--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 12:55, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:It's a moot point. The article was never designed to be a discussion - merely a listing of points pro and con, which is perfectly legitimate IMO. Call it an 'interactive article' if you like - but I don't see why an article shouldn't be interactive in a 'live' encyclopedia. Rather that than the uneditable, monolithic, ''ex cathedra'' pronouncements elsewhere in Conservapedia!... --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::'''Rob Pommer''': Answering alleged contradictions is not to shore up belief, but to refute bibliosceptical attacks on the Bible: "''We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God...''" (2 Corinthians 10:5, NIV). I don't follow the logic of your second point about the sum of the parts.
:::'''Rob Pommer''' and''' bill m''': I'm not comfortable with the format. I think it should be in the form of the criticism (the alleged contradiction) and an objection to it. To have an objection to the objection, and an objection to the objection to the objection , does get rather silly.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:40, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, that's true. Let's try and keep it down to an objection and a possible counter-objection wherever possible. Leave the reader to decide on the merits of that. In any case, keep it brief, and don't drag in all kinds of external commentators to try and argue the case by flattening the opposition, other than by footnote-reference. You may have noticed that ''my'' sole references are to the texts themselves. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::You used the actual texts? How quaint. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:19, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== Poor Bible exegesis offered at this ==

I believe there is very poor [[Bible exegesis]] offered at this article. I put some sources at the beginning of the article in order to give readers an alternative.

Specifically, I offered these web resources:

http://www.tektonics.org/index2.html

http://www.inerrancy.org/

http://www.christian-thinktank.com

http://www.apologeticspress.org/allegeddiscrepancies/

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Conservative, perhaps you missed that two of those sites were already used in some of the objections. But thanks for adding the other two. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:43, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::But in that case shouldn't some skeptical sources be linked, too? In its original format, the article didn't cite ''any'' critical sources - for either side. In fact, in my view, that is much the best idea. Originally it didn't have anything to do with exegesis - merely with what the texts actually say. Citing exterior sources (other than the texts themselves) merely drags in a whole 'war of the commentators' that can only lead to just as much confusion and uncertainty as before. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:50, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes indeedy they should.
:::Still missing the beauty of exigesis, though eh? I mean, think of all the really neat things Nostradamus never said but really did per the use of a non-biblical form of exegesis. Think of all of the UFO mysteries that are cleared up in the same fashion. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==Not to be nit-picky but...==
The portion:
''*Can the Sun and Moon ever appear together in the sky at the same time?''

''Psalm 136:8-9 No. God created "The sun to rule by day...The moon and stars to rule by night."
Genesis 1:16: No. God created "two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night..."''

''Objection 2: The passages in Psalms and Genesis should be taken figuratively rather than literally and thus do not mean that the Moon is always visible at night, nor that it is never visible during the day.''

I'd advise caution here unless it is your intent TO bring up the "when do we '''know''' we're ''supposed'' to take the Bible literally and when to take it figuratively" argument.
Not really a point, just an observation.--[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 09:47, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:I suppose the real issue here is that one cannot claim infallibility when one ceases to be literal. Once one wanders of into the realm of allegory and uses figurative devices "truth" becomes subjective. In other words, the Bible is either the literal truth or it's allegory, but once you allow for the latter you can lay no claim to the former. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 06:02, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::So are you suggesting that if someone you were talking to on the telephone said that "it's raining cats and dogs here", you would have no idea whether or not that was literally true? Is it not the case that metaphor, parable, analogy, etc. can be recognised by the context and/or the language, and that it is therefore possible to take literally the parts that are meant to be taken literally whilst acknowledging the existence of non-literal parts? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Most people I know don't claim to be infallible. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:Philip, your argument falls apart for several reasons. Myk has pointed out one of them: if no claim of infallibility is made or implied, there is no reason to assume same. Another is that as many literalists purport that every word of the bible is the infallible word of God, they simply can't turn around and say, "oh, that part? that's just a story". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 05:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::I couldn't actually see the point of Myk's comment. Claiming or not claiming infallibility says nothing about whether or not something is metaphor, parable, etc.
::I think you've got the wrong idea about infallibility. Christians believe that the entire Bible is inspired by God and is therefore infallible, but that means that it infallibly records people doing the wrong thing, infallibly records the lies that people told, etc. It does ''not'' mean that every word is literally true and that literary devices such as metaphor and parable are not used.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:49, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Clarity in language is important. If something is claimed to be infallible, it best be awfully clear in its language. Go up to someone who has just learned how to speak English and tell them it's raining cats and dogs, see what kind of reaction you get. Further, in biblical times a rain of cats and dogs doesn't seem that implausible (see: Plague of Frogs).

:::Literal truth of the bible means just that. Literal, not metaphorical. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:52, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::That something claimed to be infallible should be clear is your opinion, not a requirement of infallibility.
:::::We are talking about infallibility, not literalism. Despite NousEpirrhytos' comment below, they are two distinct concepts. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Myk, I think we're arguing logic with the wrong person. BTW, Phil, generally speaking infallible, inerrant and literal are used interchangeably when used by fundamentalists and evangelicals.
::::Another BTW, Phil, do you claim to speak for all Christians? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 18:45, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::I disagree that "infallible" and "inerrant" are ''generally'' used interchangeably with "literal" when used by fundamentalists and evangelicals. Perhaps some uninformed Christians use them interchangeably, but they are clearly different things. I see bibliosceptics conflating them more than I see Christians conflating them. ("Infallible" and "inerrant" may be used interchangeably, as they are very close if not identical in meaning.)
:::::Of course I don't claim to speak for all Christians. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::You are of course free to your own opinion. Unfortunately as I have seen (in print) and heard Biblethumpers using the words interchangeably, I really can't agree with you.
::::But, y'know what cracks me up, your use of "bibliosceptics", a neologism that does not mean what you think it does (look up "bibliophile" and ye shall find understanding). In any case, you seem to think that treating the bible just like one would treat any other book is a bad thing -- in reality, in casting a critical eye on books one can gain much wisdom. Alas, I suppose you're content to settle for a belief in salvation, staying far away from the tree of knowledge (after all, you might find that some things you thought to be good are evil, and those you thought to be evil, good). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 18:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== What's this article trying to achieve? ==

Actually, I think the answer to that question, as far as the original editor is concerned, is obvious. It's to discredit the Bible as the infallible Word of God. My reason for having it (as I added to it) is to demonstrate that the alleged contradictions are not in fact contradictions.

But...

Is it the intention to list every "contradiction" ever ''claimed''? Because if it is, there is no way to achieve that without making the page ridiculously large. Perhaps it is to just show a few samples? But so far there's been no discussion about what sorts of alleged contradictions should be included.

And frankly, many of the allegations are plain silly. In fact I quoted someone saying that about one of the alleged contradictions, and Petrus [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Alleged_Bible_contradictions&diff=72033&oldid=72032 removed] the comment. Fair enough, it was supposed to be an answer to the allegation, not a commentary on the allegation, so I didn't restore it. But it needs to be said somewhere. Let's look at this one a bit closer, because it epitomises the problems with the list.

Two sayings (aka proverbs) that most would be familiar with are:
* Many hands make light work.
* Too many cooks spoil the broth.
Are these two sayings contradictory? Taken literally, then yes they are. But does anyone object to them on those grounds? Of course not. Despite them probably being coined by different people at different times, the validity of both is accepted, because neither claims to be always true and both have their place. Sometimes, more helpers ease the burden on others, but at other times too many people result in them getting in each other's way.

So what are we to make of a proverb in the Bible that says, 'Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes."? Is this seriously a contradiction, or like the saying above, are both sentences true in some cases?

To claim that they are contradictory, one must:
* Ignore the fact that they are ''sayings'', not truth-claims that have no exceptions, and read the text literally. Bibliosceptics love to criticise Creationists and fundamentalists for reading the Bible literally, despite them repeatedly saying that they only do this where it was ''meant'' literally, whilst still recognising metaphors, parables, etc. Yet here we have a bibliosceptic reading the text literally in order to make a claim of a contradiction.
* Presume that the original author was so incompetent that he would write two consecutive sentences contradicting each other, apparently without realising it.
* Further presume that many others who included the book of Proverbs in the canon, or who copied it over and over, or who write commentaries on it, are also so incompetent that they never noticed the "contradiction".
* Reject these sorts of explanations and maintain that it ''is'' a contradiction, with the astounding observation that the text doesn't say "this", meaning the answer given. Well the sayings above don't say that they are both true in different circumstances either, but that is something people are simply expected to understand.

Then we have the case of the number of stables that Solomon had. Christians who believe that the Bible is infallible do not believe that all human translations and copies are infallible, but that the original autographs were (although they do believe that the copies are very accurate copies). So if they ''occasionally'' answer that an apparent contradiction is a copyist error (as in the case of the number of stables), it does ''not'' follow that the Bible is therefore not infallible, except in the mind of the bibliosceptic who is doing his best to find all the contradictions he can, perhaps to bolster his own faith. Keep in mind that the answer to that "contradiction" included a link (and remember that Petrus doesn't want to include links) that explained all that. Neither does he want the sort of long explanations that including all that in the article would entail.

I'm not saying that all claimed contradictions are silly. Some claims of contradictions are fair enough, in that they really do ''appear'' to be contradictions, and deserve to be answered. The number of stables one is an example, but the article should state the apparent contradiction, provide the answer, and leave it at that.

In summary, many claimed contradictions in the Bible are nothing more than bibliosceptics grasping at straws and applying criteria that they wouldn't apply in any other situation, in order to try and prove their viewpoint that the Bible is fallible. I don't believe that this article should waste its time on those sorts of "contradictions".

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Hmmm....shall I take the time to point out all of the fallacies of the above? Part of me would like to write a long refutation, but the wiser part knows this to be fruitless. So, I'll just give one example:
:<nowiki>*</nowiki> Many hands make light work. <nowiki>*</nowiki> Too many cooks spoil the broth. You're assuming that the statements are equal but there is a quantitative difference: yes, many hands may make the work easier but at a certain point, the people begin tripping over each other and thus, as they actually impede the work, there is a point, the ''ne plus ultra'', that tips the balance from a comfy many to a disastrous too many. No contradiction. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 05:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Thank you for supporting my point! To quote Petrus' counter-objection to the very "contradiction" I was discussing here, "'''But the text does not actually say this.'''"
:: I figured it would probably be fruitless to convince you blokes too, but I tried anyway.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::While we're on the topic:
::::"He who hesitates is lost" / "Look before you leap"
::::"Cut your losses and let your profits run" / "Buy low, sell high."
::::"Absence makes the heart grow fonder" / "Out of sight, out of mind"
::::"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again." / "Don't beat a dead horse."
:::::19:45, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Excellent examples! - in fact there are few well-known proverbs that don't also have their opposites. But then that makes the point perfectly. No given 'pair' is likely to have been produced by the same person. Their very oppositeness suggests different hands with different views, ''not a single, monolithic author''.

And no, my purpose wasn't 'to discredit the Bible as the infallible Word of God' - merely to provoke people actually to look at the words (in some cases, apparently for the first time!) and decide for themselves whether that proposition is really tenable in the light of the facts. Thus, 'to discredit ''the dogma'' that the Bible is the infallible Word of God', possibly. But about the Bible I'm perfectly neutral. It's indubitably there, and it indubitably says what it says. I merely urge that people read it through clear glass, not stained glass. It's better for the eyes, you know!--[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:45, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:Yet you appear to be reading it through the eyes of a hyper-literalist, rather than as it was meant to be understood. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

How do you know how it is "meant" to be understood? How do you know, for instance, that Genesis 1 was meant to be understood literally? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 18:54, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

...other than by reading it through stained glass? Why can't the text simply be allowed to say what it says, warts and all, without imposing your own dogmas and preconceptions on it - such as the man-made myth of God-given infallibility? Isn't this perilously close to ''biblolatry'', in direct infringement of the spirit of the second commandment? Do you honestly think the Bible needs ''your'' protection from the light of reality, let alone that of all the commentators whom Conservative seems intent on importing into the argument? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:53, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:As noted above, it is best to read the bible in a literary manner, that is to say, the same way you'd read any other book. I've always been amused by folks who dismiss Odysseus tricking the cyclops to save his men as far-fetched mythology and yet cling to the almost parallel David v Goliath story. Both stories are allegorical myths, not litteral renderings of "history". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::You determine how something is meant to be understood by the language used (e.g., does it conform to the style of poetry, narrative, etc.?), and by the culture for whom it was written. If, for example, a sentence said "The rock landed on the marquee", would you understand it to mean that the rock landed on a large tent, or on a canopy projecting out over the entrance to a large building? The correct answer depends on whether the writer was writing for an Australian or British audience, or an American audience. You can also look at how others who would know how to read it understood it, if such records exist. For example, Jesus referred to various aspects of the Genesis narrative as though it was historical fact; He didn't understand it as allegorical myth. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:48, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Precisely. The Genesis narrative was written for (and by) a people living nearly three thousand years ago, and Jesus lived two thousand years ago. That cultural difference is the whole explanation of why the narrative doesn't say, 'The Earth was formed as a result of the agglomeration of cosmic dust some 4,500 million years ago', and why Jesus didn't understand it that way: none of the concepts involved was understood at the time. (Just as well that, as a healer, he had never heard of the symptomatology of schizophrenia!) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Jesus was the Creator, so he would know, and He endorsed what Genesis said. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Well, technically, the only thing we know is that second-hand accounts claimed that Jesus endorsed what Genesis said. We ain't got nothin' from Jesus himself. Jesus didn't write anything. --[[User:ReaganLives|ReaganLives]] 08:46, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::If you want to get technical about it, the ultimate author of the Bible was God, Jesus is God, ergo Jesus is the author of the Bible, so we do have it from Jesus Himself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::I think Jesus is inerrant, therefore he couldn't have written the Bible. Too many internal consistencies. Why don't you believe Jesus is inerrant? Are you a liberal? --[[User:ReaganLives|ReaganLives]] 12:55, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Or so it's reported in the Gospels.
:Also, if you read the bible in the cultural context, something that is part of any literary reading or scholarship, you'd understand why, for example, the creation stories are written as they are. They are attempts to explain the then unknowable "whence came we?", but from different perspectives, separated in time by about 160 years. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 09:11, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::I agree that it should be understood in its cultural context; that's effectively one of the things I've been saying. But I disagree that the cultural context is that of trying to explain the unknowable. If the Bible is correct, the "unknowable" was revealed by God, thus known. I don't understand the reference to 160 years. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:20, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Then, I would suggest you indulge your curiosity in some real Bible scholarship, rather than reading only those interpretations meant to make members of the evangelical community feel more secure in their ''argumenta ad ignoratium''. I can suggest two well-respected books, based on true interdisciplinary scholarship, if you wish.
:::BTW, what's with the edit summary "Jesus knew"? -- how would you (or anyone else for that matter) know what Jesus "knew". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 16:20, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the condescending remarks. As the Creator, Jesus obviously knew how creation occurred. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:43, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Unless, of course, he wasn't and didn't. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:14, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Vero, Petre. Interesting that Philip states religious dogma as fact. Note, Philip, that I did not use the theological title "Christ" (i.e., Jesus as God), but rather used his human name, thus referring to Jesus as a man. Thus, having clarified my question, I shall ask again: how would you (or anyone else for that matter) know what Jesus "knew". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:10, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: I was stating it in a matter-of-fact way because I was answering the question of how Jesus would know. That's how He would know, and in that context it was proper to put it in that way.
:::: I fail to grasp the distinction that you are making between Jesus as God and Jesus as man, therefore my answer stands. Are you suggesting that the man Jesus was totally oblivious to what He had done as God?
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::''Who said'' Jesus is God? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:58, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::The Bible does. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:39, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::But the Koran doesn't - and the Koran is the Word of God. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 10:54, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::So? You asked who does say it, and the Bible does say it, so the Koran ''not'' saying it doesn't change that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:37, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Further proof of the need to read. I'm talking about assuming Jesus to be just a man, not a god. Try to consider that possibility...it will not harm your faith and you might even learn something in the process. Also, why not try (if you haven't, already) reading the bible without relying on exegesis or the opinions of others, there again you might learn something.
:::Obviously, I have no ken of precisely what you know or think, but it seems, based on what you've written here, that your knowledge is limited to monolithic dogma and that you might think that those of us who see the bible as a book are bereft of biblical knowledge (in the true sense, not some cosmic exegetical sense). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 10:50, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Hey, if you want to get hypothetical and propose that Jesus was not God at all, then sure, he would not have known. But why not also hypothesise that Jesus didn't exist, or that the Bible was written by Shakespeare or something? The point is that I was answering a question about how I would know how Genesis was intended to be understood, and part of my answer was to rely on what Jesus understood it to mean. By "Jesus", I mean the bloke in the New Testament who was actually God and who was actually the Creator. That's what '''I''' meant by "Jesus". The response was to ask how Jesus would know if he ''wasn't'' God. Well sure, if He wasn't God, he wouldn't know, but I was answering the question according to my understanding of who Jesus was. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:49, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::On the basis of what evidence? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:55, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::The Bible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:39, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, this discussion has gone as far as it can. The illogic displayed by Philip is a clear indication that he is not willing to learn anything, and that his lithocephalic attachment to what he "believes" will neither allow him to learn nor to debate in a rational manner. Sad, really. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:59, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::So now you accuse me of being illogical without showing that I have been illogical. Nice. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:47, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::'The Bible' (a whole library of different books, most of which don't even mention Jesus at all) is not evidence, any more than 'the police department's computer' is evidence that Joe Bloggs burgled your house. Cite the precise evidence that Jesus is God, or stop making such absurd claims as that he was the Creator (which even most traditional Christians don't believe) - ideas which, as a faithful Jew, he cannot possibly have supported himself. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:51, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::I can't see the analogy between the Bible and the police computer, but why can't the police computer contain the evidence of a burglary?
::::::Are you unaware of the verses in the Bible that say that Jesus was the Creator? I can quote them if you want, but I suspect that you already know them and reject them for some reason.
::::::Why couldn't Jesus have supported that idea?
::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:49, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Additional topic for study for Phillip: Judaism. 12:53, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Petrus' comment of 05:51, 8 April 2007 (EDT) shows but one example of Philip's illogic. Another example would be this sentence, "But why not also hypothesise that Jesus didn't exist, or that the Bible was written by Shakespeare or something?" This is an absurd extrapolation that has no basis in what I said, and as such is an illogical response. Also Philip, while I'm sure you're unaware of this, you should know that for nearly two millenia there have been raging debates within the Chistian community regarding to what extent and where Jesus can use his "supernaural" powers. For example -- for the crucifxion to be a valid sacrifice leading to salvation, Jesus must be all man during that period. Also, early Christianity were beset with a variety of "heresies" (litteraly "schools of thought) that, had they been adopted, would have profoundly changed your current beliefs. See ''Donatism, Manichaeism, Gnosticism, Marcionism, Montanism'' and ''Docetism''. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 07:18, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::It is a rather large extrapolation, to make a point, but it's only an extrapolation, not an example of bad logic. Even if you are correct about Jesus needing to be all man (and I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing), how does that affect what I said? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:49, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I can't think of any convincing evidence from the Bible that Jesus thought he was God, let alone the Creator - so perhaps you'd better enlighten us? Simple references will do. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 10:54, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::I hope you mean that you can't think of any references, rather than you can't think of any "convincing evidence", else I'm probably wasting my time. But here are two (both are talking about Jesus):
{{QuoteBox|In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. (John 1:1-3, NIV)}}
{{QuoteBox|For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. (Colossians 1:16, NIV)}}

:(reduce indent)Equating Jesus with the nebulous "the Word" requires exegesis based on several bad assumptions. The actor (subject) in Colossians, in both the original Greek and the English, is unclear (likely intentionally), and the verses from 1:10 through 1:20 need to be considered in order for 1:16 to be read properly: it is '''not''' a standalone sentence, it is part of a series of subordinate clauses. Yanking biblical quotes out of context is one of the causes of poor understanding and is certainly poor scholarship. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 13:05, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::There's also Mark: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."

:::::::As for Jesus himself, there's Matthew 16:13-17, {{QuoteBox|When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.}}
:::::::How do you parse this? It's not clear to me why Jesus consistently prefers to call himself the "Son of man," and the annotation in the Oxford Annotated Bible is rather vague: "''Son of man,'' a title which Jesus used of himself, probably seemed to his listeners to carry either of two meanings: (a) that Jesus called himself a typical human being... or (b) that Jesus ... linked himself to the prophesied figure of Dan.7.13-14... Jesus nowhere fully discloses his own understanding of the term." Still, in the above passage, it seems to me that after Peter calls Jesus "the Son of the living God," Jesus ''endorses this as valid divine revelation to Peter.'' That isn't Jesus calling himself the Son of God, but isn't it awfully close?
:::::::Still, this brings up something that bothers me. When people say "the Bible says," sometimes it means "the Bible says," but quite often it means "someone ''in'' the Bible says."
:::::::For example, "the Bible" indeed says "And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights."
:::::::But "the Bible" does not say "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you." Rather, the Bible says Moses says God said this.
:::::::The problem here is whether or not everybody quoted in the Bible has equal authority. Are we allowed to make such judgements, or not? Does the Bible say "For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing" and "a living dog is better than a dead lion?" If we're allowed to say, "no, that's not God, that's just Solomon," then why aren't we allowed to say about Romans 1:26-27, "no, that's not God, that's just Paul?" If everything in the Bible is of equal authority, then why do some Bibles print the words of Christ in red? If everything in the Bible is of equal authority, then why do so few Christians obey the kosher dietary laws? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:09, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

== Protected debate page? ==

Whats the deal with the protected debate page? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:57, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:Conservative apparently went on a "Clean up unsourced statements" trip (blocked Hoji in the process for re-inserting things - who then unblocked himself because he's so awesome), not realizing that this is not in the Main space anymore. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:02, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::I then went to delete some other unsourced stuff. But, CPAdmin1 reverted it, and I have asked him why, because this is ridiculous to the Nth degree. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:05, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== This "namespace" is a joke. It claimed people to be scholars who weren't ==

Hoji wrote to me regarding [[Conservapedia:Alleged Bible contradictions]] the following: " It is a Conservapedia: namespace, is NOT AN ARTICLE, and does NOT need citations."

I can't think of anything more detrimental to Conservapedia than to be filled with "Namespaces" (whatever those are) because people can say just about any foolish thing without backing it up.

The "contradiction" page is a monstrosity claiming people to be "critical scholars" who have no real credentials ('''Unix systems engineer'''), etc.

What's with this whole "namespace" idea?

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:13, 5 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

: The namespace means its not a real article and lets people bicker back and foreth without the threat of getting banned. Citations are not needed (unless you presume to go clean up the other Conservapedia namespace articles that lack citations). What are your credentials anyways? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Especially where the introductory remarks merely refer to what ''generally'' happens - on ''both'' sides of the argument! One almost gets the impression that ''somebody'' is afraid to have both sides stated! Such paranoia is both unworthy and unnecessary. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:58, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: *sigh* Ask first, act then. It's not quantum physics. "Namespace" = a sort of container, filled with articles. All regular articles are in the "Main" namespace (for example, [[Theory of evolution]] is in the main namespace). Article Talk pages (like [[Talk:Theory of evolution]]) are in the "Talk" namespace. Same goes for pages in the "Help" namespace (all articles starting with "Help:...") or the "Conservapedia" namespace (like this "article").
:Articles in the "Conservapedia" namespace are NOT regular articles. All debates are in it, along with a few special pages about Conservapedia itself. This "article" was moved from the "Main" namespace to the "Conservapedia" namespace - most likely BECAUSE it's not a normal article and more of a debate.
:As you may have noticed, debates fall a bit out of the normal rules - not everything must be sourced (althouth it helps). Original research and argumentation is naturally a part of a debate, so it's completely counter-intuitive to suddenly "clean up" things - you're destroying a debate archive. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:24, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::This is a prime example of why, instead of reverting blindly without even understanding the Wiki model, you should consult other editors. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:32, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==unwinable battle==
Glad to see that section removed, as it was essentially a big "so what?" Crowing that "noted evangelical scholars" (a bit of an oxymoron) signed such and such petition supporting Bible inerrancy is as valueless as a petition signed by baseball player saying they support baseball. @@ [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:22, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

=="Contradictions need to be proved"==
Looks like a long paragraph of someone's personal opinion. Is there a source somewhere that defines what a "Biblical contradiction" is? A generally accepted rulebook that says whom the "onus" is upon and so forth? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:A biblical contradiction is the same as any other contradictions, and contradictions are generally the responsibility of the speaker/writer or his/her representatives to clear up. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 16:38, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== I do not understand this argument. ==

Could someone please explain to me how anyone in their right mind could think this is a sensible argument to have? The collection of works called the bible was written over thousands of years by a load of different guys in various languages, with different agendas, different points of view, and using their limited understanding of the world as it was at the time they wrote it. Following this, bits were lost, added to, lost again, and then transcribed, translated, re-transcribed, re-translated etc. by a whole load of different guys all struggling to make sense out of a fragmented text in a different language, sno longer spoken. How on earth would anyone expect that there would not be inaccuracies and contradictions arising from that process?

... and if you claim that 'God guided the hand of the writers, translators etc...", think again.
Why on earth (or in heaven) would he bother? Wouldn't it have been much simpler to write the thing once and set it in stone for all time, and ensure that his word was preserved intact? If God actually wanted that, then that was what he would have done. Come on guys, think about it... even if you are a believer, the real point about having a bible is that it does contain inaccuracies. No believer can be 100% sure that God has not deliberately inserted inaccuracies, simply so that mankind is forced into a debate about 'higher' matters, such as his existence, what the passages actually mean, and the moral and ethical debates ensuing; non-believers of couse just say that that it's just a disparate load of stories & prejudices, to be taken with a pinch of salt.

What you cannot claim, by any sensible and logical reading of the situation, is that it is bible infallible. How on earth could it be, or more importantly, why would it be?

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 12:53, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:A very brief answer: In your first paragraph, you are drawing conclusions on the basis of premises that are not accepted by Christians who believe the Bible in inerrant, and you have not shown those premises to be true. In your second paragraph, you are claiming to know what God would think is the best thing to do, and what you consider reasonable. Perhaps He sees it differently to you. The first sentence of your third paragraph amounts to an assertion with no substance. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 13:22, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::(i) You mean that people do not believe that the bible was written over thousands of years by different authors? Where did it come from then?
:: (ii) If I cannot know the mind of God, then how can anyone? In which case how do ''you'' know what I claim about the mind of God isn't true? Surely by claiming that the bible (which you take to be the word of God) is true, ''you'' are claiming to know the mind of God, and are therefore guilty of what I stand accused.
:: (iii) I am not asserting anything in the last sentence; I am denying an assertion made by others on the basis of a logical argument carried out in the two paragraphs above.

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:42, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::# No, I agree it was written over about 2000 years by a number of different authors. But you made a lot more claims that just that.
::::# I'm not saying that nobody can know anything about the mind of God, but to claim to know the ''best'' way for God to have done something presumes that you know all the possible implications of doing it in different ways. It's like a surveyor mapping the best route for a new railway, then you come along and say that it would have been better to go a different way, not realising that the surveyor knew more about the situation than you, and the way you propose has some unstable ground along the route, or some other problem that you hadn't been aware of.
::::# You are asserting that others cannot claim the Bible to be infallible.
::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Philip, look, I'm sure you think I'm being snarky when I say this, but you really need to educate yourself. Cat's slightly off with his/her dating, but not drastically off. The Pentateuch was written over a 160-200 year span beginning about 720 BCE, with the prophetic material being written as late as 100 BCE. The NT was written between the 5th decade of the first century CE up to (possibly) as late as 120 CE, with editing going on into the 3rd century.
:::The relevancy of whether the premises are supported by bible inerrantists escapes me. History is replete with the dogmatic detritus of the denials of reality by various relious sects.
:::Cat's point re the second paragraph is correct -- you base your denial on a circular argument that only true believers of your ilk can "know the mind of god" and the rest of us are bereft of any comprehension. This is an untenable and preposterous argument, a tautology of the first magnitude.
:::What, precisely, is Cat asserting in the third paragraph? Nothing that I can see (other than, perhaps, a disagreement with previous assertions). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:40, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Some people believe that the Pentateuch was written from around 720 B.C. onwards (I know that already, it's not a lack of education on my part), but other people believe differently. If you were unaware of that, perhaps ''you'' need to educate yourself.
::::: I'm sorry that the relevance escapes you, but what you are doing is simply denigrating people who hold a different view by claiming, without evidence, that they are denying reality. How about proving your case (if you can) instead of just throwing insults?
::::: My argument was not tautologous, but perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying and hopefully my reply to CatWatcher has clarified matters.
::::: See my reply to CatWatcher for what she was asserting.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: In paragraph 3 I am contending that no-one could possibly claim that the bible is infallible, either pragmatically or theologically. Pragmatically it is a distillation of different sources which cannot in principle be expected to agree; theologically it must either be fallible or open to doubt. If it is neither, then it is both valid and indisputable. This means that God has provided us with a document which proves his existence; hence faith is not required, as we have his telephone number & address. The fact that he requires us to have faith, means that the bible, in principle must therefore either be fallible or questionable. QED.
--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 18:11, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Works for me. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 19:50, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I'm not sure that I totally follow your reasoning there, but the problem is with your definition of faith, which, biblically, is trust, based on evidence. You seem to be assuming that faith is belief held without evidence. See [http://tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html here] for a better explanation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, Philip, you've proven one of my suspicions -- you ''do'' rely on the exegesis and opinions of other insofar as they suppoort your belief system. Now, try to find, for example, a discussion of faith that is ''not'' from an apologetics site. Faith is very much the belief in things for which there is no logical basis, no physical proof, no evidence (except in the mind of a believer -- the tautology of faith). Why are you seemingly so afraid to go outside the safe realm of apologetics and look into other opnions? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 07:30, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: [[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]]:
::::: 1) Many people do, in fact claim that the Bible is infallible theologically.
::::: 2) A lesser but significant number do claim that the Bible is infallible pragmatically.
::::: 3) "If it happens, it's possible."
::::: 4) Ergo, you must be wrong when you say "no-one could possibly claim" these things.
::::: Take a look at TerryH's comments in the opening paragraphs of [[Conservapedia:Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?]] for an example of someone who takes Biblical accuracy pretty seriously. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:35, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Despite Phil's protestations, faith is defined by believing something ''without'' evidence. Faith is a feeling, often a decision, to believe in something grander than nature/science. When one is overwhelmed with religious feeling or epiphany, this is a subjective phenomenon. As most of us know, applying science to God rarely leaves either smelling right. Dawkins denies the value of the concept of ''nonoverlapping magisteria'', but it really is a useful concept, and probably more so for Theists than Atheists. I don't want someone coming after my faith with an electron microscope.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:17, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:PalMD is correct on all counts. Faith is a very personal thing, a subjective experience based as much on a longing for purpose as any active decision to believe, It is also much like a drug -- epiphantic moments trigger the same release of chemicals as most euphoria-causing drugs. There is a close affinity between the faithful and people who are substance-dependant: both need to rely on internalised experience based on an external catalyst to reach some form of temporary fulfillment or psychological rapture/ecstacy. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:29, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Is the Bible Inerrant?

2007-04-08T18:29:19Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* I do not understand this argument. */

== Question on the "wise men" ==

The counter-objection to "Who visited Jesus in his crib?" says, "Ah, no - sorry! Merely 'where the young child was'!".

Is this meant as a retraction? If not, perhaps it means that you've missed the point of the objection. The point is that the magi ''didn't'' visit Jesus in the manger/crib/inn, despite all those nativity scenes showing otherwise.

Firstly, the text says that they visited him "in the house". Secondly, they presumably saw the star when he was born, but spent some time travelling to Bethlehem via Jerusalem, with Herod asking them about when they saw the star. Thirdly, presumably on the basis of their answer, Herod had all the boys up to two years old. Taken together, all these clues indicate that whilst the shepherds visited the new-born Jesus, the magi visited the toddler Jesus up to two years later.

Ergo, no contradiction.

By the way, it's good to see you remove a couple of "contradictions". Keep doing that and you'll eventually have to admit that there are none! :-)

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:31, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Keep going yourself, and you'll hang yourself eventually! ;0) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:35, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
::Why do we even have this list? It's all context switching!--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 12:46, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I don't understand what you mean by "context switching".
:::I'm sure from Petrus' point of view, this article (which he created as "Bible Contradictions") is intended to show that the Bible has mistakes, so cannot be infallible.
:::From my point of view, this article is/can-be useful to show (a) that many of the common bibliosceptic attacks on the Bible are just silly, and (b) the more legitimate criticisms do have answers.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:31, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Not sure about the 'context-switching'. Personally, I'm not referring to 'contexts', but merely listing texts that appear to contradict each other. If others insist on bringing in 'contexts' to justify their objections (which usually means 'interpretations'), good luck to them - but it will merely weaken their case. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:33, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::You miss the beauty of exegesis, Petre, one can make the bible say virtually anything. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:18, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:As certain people, with their constant recourse to exegetical twisters, should have realised by now! ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:35, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::No doubt. But I wonder if they've realised that in the process they've made the Bible say virtually nothing -- it all becomes a maddening din of pseudo-hosannahs, the rumblings of a schizophrenic god and apoplectic apocalypses. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 06:07, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Especially as ''Hosanna'' means, not 'Hooray', but 'Save us now' - so they can't have shouted ''Hosanna '''to'''...'' anyone! ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:31, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Why ==
Why is there discussion going on '''in''' the article? [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 12:48, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:The only reason one may need to resolve possible contradictions of the Bible is to shore-up the belief that it needs to be taken literally, whenever possible.
:If one allows for errors in the Bible then the whole makes more than the sum of the parts.[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 12:52, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, why have an "article" which is a debate? The debate (if we really need one) should be here and later put to the article.--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 12:55, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:It's a moot point. The article was never designed to be a discussion - merely a listing of points pro and con, which is perfectly legitimate IMO. Call it an 'interactive article' if you like - but I don't see why an article shouldn't be interactive in a 'live' encyclopedia. Rather that than the uneditable, monolithic, ''ex cathedra'' pronouncements elsewhere in Conservapedia!... --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::'''Rob Pommer''': Answering alleged contradictions is not to shore up belief, but to refute bibliosceptical attacks on the Bible: "''We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God...''" (2 Corinthians 10:5, NIV). I don't follow the logic of your second point about the sum of the parts.
:::'''Rob Pommer''' and''' bill m''': I'm not comfortable with the format. I think it should be in the form of the criticism (the alleged contradiction) and an objection to it. To have an objection to the objection, and an objection to the objection to the objection , does get rather silly.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:40, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, that's true. Let's try and keep it down to an objection and a possible counter-objection wherever possible. Leave the reader to decide on the merits of that. In any case, keep it brief, and don't drag in all kinds of external commentators to try and argue the case by flattening the opposition, other than by footnote-reference. You may have noticed that ''my'' sole references are to the texts themselves. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::You used the actual texts? How quaint. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:19, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== Poor Bible exegesis offered at this ==

I believe there is very poor [[Bible exegesis]] offered at this article. I put some sources at the beginning of the article in order to give readers an alternative.

Specifically, I offered these web resources:

http://www.tektonics.org/index2.html

http://www.inerrancy.org/

http://www.christian-thinktank.com

http://www.apologeticspress.org/allegeddiscrepancies/

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Conservative, perhaps you missed that two of those sites were already used in some of the objections. But thanks for adding the other two. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:43, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::But in that case shouldn't some skeptical sources be linked, too? In its original format, the article didn't cite ''any'' critical sources - for either side. In fact, in my view, that is much the best idea. Originally it didn't have anything to do with exegesis - merely with what the texts actually say. Citing exterior sources (other than the texts themselves) merely drags in a whole 'war of the commentators' that can only lead to just as much confusion and uncertainty as before. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:50, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes indeedy they should.
:::Still missing the beauty of exigesis, though eh? I mean, think of all the really neat things Nostradamus never said but really did per the use of a non-biblical form of exegesis. Think of all of the UFO mysteries that are cleared up in the same fashion. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==Not to be nit-picky but...==
The portion:
''*Can the Sun and Moon ever appear together in the sky at the same time?''

''Psalm 136:8-9 No. God created "The sun to rule by day...The moon and stars to rule by night."
Genesis 1:16: No. God created "two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night..."''

''Objection 2: The passages in Psalms and Genesis should be taken figuratively rather than literally and thus do not mean that the Moon is always visible at night, nor that it is never visible during the day.''

I'd advise caution here unless it is your intent TO bring up the "when do we '''know''' we're ''supposed'' to take the Bible literally and when to take it figuratively" argument.
Not really a point, just an observation.--[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 09:47, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:I suppose the real issue here is that one cannot claim infallibility when one ceases to be literal. Once one wanders of into the realm of allegory and uses figurative devices "truth" becomes subjective. In other words, the Bible is either the literal truth or it's allegory, but once you allow for the latter you can lay no claim to the former. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 06:02, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::So are you suggesting that if someone you were talking to on the telephone said that "it's raining cats and dogs here", you would have no idea whether or not that was literally true? Is it not the case that metaphor, parable, analogy, etc. can be recognised by the context and/or the language, and that it is therefore possible to take literally the parts that are meant to be taken literally whilst acknowledging the existence of non-literal parts? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Most people I know don't claim to be infallible. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:Philip, your argument falls apart for several reasons. Myk has pointed out one of them: if no claim of infallibility is made or implied, there is no reason to assume same. Another is that as many literalists purport that every word of the bible is the infallible word of God, they simply can't turn around and say, "oh, that part? that's just a story". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 05:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::I couldn't actually see the point of Myk's comment. Claiming or not claiming infallibility says nothing about whether or not something is metaphor, parable, etc.
::I think you've got the wrong idea about infallibility. Christians believe that the entire Bible is inspired by God and is therefore infallible, but that means that it infallibly records people doing the wrong thing, infallibly records the lies that people told, etc. It does ''not'' mean that every word is literally true and that literary devices such as metaphor and parable are not used.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:49, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Clarity in language is important. If something is claimed to be infallible, it best be awfully clear in its language. Go up to someone who has just learned how to speak English and tell them it's raining cats and dogs, see what kind of reaction you get. Further, in biblical times a rain of cats and dogs doesn't seem that implausible (see: Plague of Frogs).

:::Literal truth of the bible means just that. Literal, not metaphorical. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:52, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::That something claimed to be infallible should be clear is your opinion, not a requirement of infallibility.
:::::We are talking about infallibility, not literalism. Despite NousEpirrhytos' comment below, they are two distinct concepts. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Myk, I think we're arguing logic with the wrong person. BTW, Phil, generally speaking infallible, inerrant and literal are used interchangeably when used by fundamentalists and evangelicals.
::::Another BTW, Phil, do you claim to speak for all Christians? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 18:45, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::I disagree that "infallible" and "inerrant" are ''generally'' used interchangeably with "literal" when used by fundamentalists and evangelicals. Perhaps some uninformed Christians use them interchangeably, but they are clearly different things. I see bibliosceptics conflating them more than I see Christians conflating them. ("Infallible" and "inerrant" may be used interchangeably, as they are very close if not identical in meaning.)
:::::Of course I don't claim to speak for all Christians. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::You are of course free to your own opinion. Unfortunately as I have seen (in print) and heard Biblethumpers using the words interchangeably, I really can't agree with you.
::::But, y'know what cracks me up, your use of "bibliosceptics", a neologism that does not mean what you think it does (look up "bibliophile" and ye shall find understanding). In any case, you seem to think that treating the bible just like one would treat any other book is a bad thing -- in reality, in casting a critical eye on books one can gain much wisdom. Alas, I suppose you're content to settle for a belief in salvation, staying far away from the tree of knowledge (after all, you might find that some things you thought to be good are evil, and those you thought to be evil, good). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 18:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== What's this article trying to achieve? ==

Actually, I think the answer to that question, as far as the original editor is concerned, is obvious. It's to discredit the Bible as the infallible Word of God. My reason for having it (as I added to it) is to demonstrate that the alleged contradictions are not in fact contradictions.

But...

Is it the intention to list every "contradiction" ever ''claimed''? Because if it is, there is no way to achieve that without making the page ridiculously large. Perhaps it is to just show a few samples? But so far there's been no discussion about what sorts of alleged contradictions should be included.

And frankly, many of the allegations are plain silly. In fact I quoted someone saying that about one of the alleged contradictions, and Petrus [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Alleged_Bible_contradictions&diff=72033&oldid=72032 removed] the comment. Fair enough, it was supposed to be an answer to the allegation, not a commentary on the allegation, so I didn't restore it. But it needs to be said somewhere. Let's look at this one a bit closer, because it epitomises the problems with the list.

Two sayings (aka proverbs) that most would be familiar with are:
* Many hands make light work.
* Too many cooks spoil the broth.
Are these two sayings contradictory? Taken literally, then yes they are. But does anyone object to them on those grounds? Of course not. Despite them probably being coined by different people at different times, the validity of both is accepted, because neither claims to be always true and both have their place. Sometimes, more helpers ease the burden on others, but at other times too many people result in them getting in each other's way.

So what are we to make of a proverb in the Bible that says, 'Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes."? Is this seriously a contradiction, or like the saying above, are both sentences true in some cases?

To claim that they are contradictory, one must:
* Ignore the fact that they are ''sayings'', not truth-claims that have no exceptions, and read the text literally. Bibliosceptics love to criticise Creationists and fundamentalists for reading the Bible literally, despite them repeatedly saying that they only do this where it was ''meant'' literally, whilst still recognising metaphors, parables, etc. Yet here we have a bibliosceptic reading the text literally in order to make a claim of a contradiction.
* Presume that the original author was so incompetent that he would write two consecutive sentences contradicting each other, apparently without realising it.
* Further presume that many others who included the book of Proverbs in the canon, or who copied it over and over, or who write commentaries on it, are also so incompetent that they never noticed the "contradiction".
* Reject these sorts of explanations and maintain that it ''is'' a contradiction, with the astounding observation that the text doesn't say "this", meaning the answer given. Well the sayings above don't say that they are both true in different circumstances either, but that is something people are simply expected to understand.

Then we have the case of the number of stables that Solomon had. Christians who believe that the Bible is infallible do not believe that all human translations and copies are infallible, but that the original autographs were (although they do believe that the copies are very accurate copies). So if they ''occasionally'' answer that an apparent contradiction is a copyist error (as in the case of the number of stables), it does ''not'' follow that the Bible is therefore not infallible, except in the mind of the bibliosceptic who is doing his best to find all the contradictions he can, perhaps to bolster his own faith. Keep in mind that the answer to that "contradiction" included a link (and remember that Petrus doesn't want to include links) that explained all that. Neither does he want the sort of long explanations that including all that in the article would entail.

I'm not saying that all claimed contradictions are silly. Some claims of contradictions are fair enough, in that they really do ''appear'' to be contradictions, and deserve to be answered. The number of stables one is an example, but the article should state the apparent contradiction, provide the answer, and leave it at that.

In summary, many claimed contradictions in the Bible are nothing more than bibliosceptics grasping at straws and applying criteria that they wouldn't apply in any other situation, in order to try and prove their viewpoint that the Bible is fallible. I don't believe that this article should waste its time on those sorts of "contradictions".

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Hmmm....shall I take the time to point out all of the fallacies of the above? Part of me would like to write a long refutation, but the wiser part knows this to be fruitless. So, I'll just give one example:
:<nowiki>*</nowiki> Many hands make light work. <nowiki>*</nowiki> Too many cooks spoil the broth. You're assuming that the statements are equal but there is a quantitative difference: yes, many hands may make the work easier but at a certain point, the people begin tripping over each other and thus, as they actually impede the work, there is a point, the ''ne plus ultra'', that tips the balance from a comfy many to a disastrous too many. No contradiction. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 05:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Thank you for supporting my point! To quote Petrus' counter-objection to the very "contradiction" I was discussing here, "'''But the text does not actually say this.'''"
:: I figured it would probably be fruitless to convince you blokes too, but I tried anyway.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::While we're on the topic:
::::"He who hesitates is lost" / "Look before you leap"
::::"Cut your losses and let your profits run" / "Buy low, sell high."
::::"Absence makes the heart grow fonder" / "Out of sight, out of mind"
::::"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again." / "Don't beat a dead horse."
:::::19:45, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Excellent examples! - in fact there are few well-known proverbs that don't also have their opposites. But then that makes the point perfectly. No given 'pair' is likely to have been produced by the same person. Their very oppositeness suggests different hands with different views, ''not a single, monolithic author''.

And no, my purpose wasn't 'to discredit the Bible as the infallible Word of God' - merely to provoke people actually to look at the words (in some cases, apparently for the first time!) and decide for themselves whether that proposition is really tenable in the light of the facts. Thus, 'to discredit ''the dogma'' that the Bible is the infallible Word of God', possibly. But about the Bible I'm perfectly neutral. It's indubitably there, and it indubitably says what it says. I merely urge that people read it through clear glass, not stained glass. It's better for the eyes, you know!--[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:45, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:Yet you appear to be reading it through the eyes of a hyper-literalist, rather than as it was meant to be understood. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

How do you know how it is "meant" to be understood? How do you know, for instance, that Genesis 1 was meant to be understood literally? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 18:54, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

...other than by reading it through stained glass? Why can't the text simply be allowed to say what it says, warts and all, without imposing your own dogmas and preconceptions on it - such as the man-made myth of God-given infallibility? Isn't this perilously close to ''biblolatry'', in direct infringement of the spirit of the second commandment? Do you honestly think the Bible needs ''your'' protection from the light of reality, let alone that of all the commentators whom Conservative seems intent on importing into the argument? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:53, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:As noted above, it is best to read the bible in a literary manner, that is to say, the same way you'd read any other book. I've always been amused by folks who dismiss Odysseus tricking the cyclops to save his men as far-fetched mythology and yet cling to the almost parallel David v Goliath story. Both stories are allegorical myths, not litteral renderings of "history". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::You determine how something is meant to be understood by the language used (e.g., does it conform to the style of poetry, narrative, etc.?), and by the culture for whom it was written. If, for example, a sentence said "The rock landed on the marquee", would you understand it to mean that the rock landed on a large tent, or on a canopy projecting out over the entrance to a large building? The correct answer depends on whether the writer was writing for an Australian or British audience, or an American audience. You can also look at how others who would know how to read it understood it, if such records exist. For example, Jesus referred to various aspects of the Genesis narrative as though it was historical fact; He didn't understand it as allegorical myth. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:48, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Precisely. The Genesis narrative was written for (and by) a people living nearly three thousand years ago, and Jesus lived two thousand years ago. That cultural difference is the whole explanation of why the narrative doesn't say, 'The Earth was formed as a result of the agglomeration of cosmic dust some 4,500 million years ago', and why Jesus didn't understand it that way: none of the concepts involved was understood at the time. (Just as well that, as a healer, he had never heard of the symptomatology of schizophrenia!) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Jesus was the Creator, so he would know, and He endorsed what Genesis said. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Well, technically, the only thing we know is that second-hand accounts claimed that Jesus endorsed what Genesis said. We ain't got nothin' from Jesus himself. Jesus didn't write anything. --[[User:ReaganLives|ReaganLives]] 08:46, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::If you want to get technical about it, the ultimate author of the Bible was God, Jesus is God, ergo Jesus is the author of the Bible, so we do have it from Jesus Himself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::I think Jesus is inerrant, therefore he couldn't have written the Bible. Too many internal consistencies. Why don't you believe Jesus is inerrant? Are you a liberal? --[[User:ReaganLives|ReaganLives]] 12:55, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Or so it's reported in the Gospels.
:Also, if you read the bible in the cultural context, something that is part of any literary reading or scholarship, you'd understand why, for example, the creation stories are written as they are. They are attempts to explain the then unknowable "whence came we?", but from different perspectives, separated in time by about 160 years. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 09:11, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::I agree that it should be understood in its cultural context; that's effectively one of the things I've been saying. But I disagree that the cultural context is that of trying to explain the unknowable. If the Bible is correct, the "unknowable" was revealed by God, thus known. I don't understand the reference to 160 years. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:20, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Then, I would suggest you indulge your curiosity in some real Bible scholarship, rather than reading only those interpretations meant to make members of the evangelical community feel more secure in their ''argumenta ad ignoratium''. I can suggest two well-respected books, based on true interdisciplinary scholarship, if you wish.
:::BTW, what's with the edit summary "Jesus knew"? -- how would you (or anyone else for that matter) know what Jesus "knew". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 16:20, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the condescending remarks. As the Creator, Jesus obviously knew how creation occurred. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:43, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Unless, of course, he wasn't and didn't. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:14, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Vero, Petre. Interesting that Philip states religious dogma as fact. Note, Philip, that I did not use the theological title "Christ" (i.e., Jesus as God), but rather used his human name, thus referring to Jesus as a man. Thus, having clarified my question, I shall ask again: how would you (or anyone else for that matter) know what Jesus "knew". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:10, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: I was stating it in a matter-of-fact way because I was answering the question of how Jesus would know. That's how He would know, and in that context it was proper to put it in that way.
:::: I fail to grasp the distinction that you are making between Jesus as God and Jesus as man, therefore my answer stands. Are you suggesting that the man Jesus was totally oblivious to what He had done as God?
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::''Who said'' Jesus is God? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:58, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::The Bible does. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:39, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::But the Koran doesn't - and the Koran is the Word of God. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 10:54, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::So? You asked who does say it, and the Bible does say it, so the Koran ''not'' saying it doesn't change that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:37, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Further proof of the need to read. I'm talking about assuming Jesus to be just a man, not a god. Try to consider that possibility...it will not harm your faith and you might even learn something in the process. Also, why not try (if you haven't, already) reading the bible without relying on exegesis or the opinions of others, there again you might learn something.
:::Obviously, I have no ken of precisely what you know or think, but it seems, based on what you've written here, that your knowledge is limited to monolithic dogma and that you might think that those of us who see the bible as a book are bereft of biblical knowledge (in the true sense, not some cosmic exegetical sense). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 10:50, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Hey, if you want to get hypothetical and propose that Jesus was not God at all, then sure, he would not have known. But why not also hypothesise that Jesus didn't exist, or that the Bible was written by Shakespeare or something? The point is that I was answering a question about how I would know how Genesis was intended to be understood, and part of my answer was to rely on what Jesus understood it to mean. By "Jesus", I mean the bloke in the New Testament who was actually God and who was actually the Creator. That's what '''I''' meant by "Jesus". The response was to ask how Jesus would know if he ''wasn't'' God. Well sure, if He wasn't God, he wouldn't know, but I was answering the question according to my understanding of who Jesus was. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:49, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::On the basis of what evidence? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:55, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::The Bible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:39, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, this discussion has gone as far as it can. The illogic displayed by Philip is a clear indication that he is not willing to learn anything, and that his lithocephalic attachment to what he "believes" will neither allow him to learn nor to debate in a rational manner. Sad, really. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:59, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::So now you accuse me of being illogical without showing that I have been illogical. Nice. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:47, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::'The Bible' (a whole library of different books, most of which don't even mention Jesus at all) is not evidence, any more than 'the police department's computer' is evidence that Joe Bloggs burgled your house. Cite the precise evidence that Jesus is God, or stop making such absurd claims as that he was the Creator (which even most traditional Christians don't believe) - ideas which, as a faithful Jew, he cannot possibly have supported himself. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:51, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::I can't see the analogy between the Bible and the police computer, but why can't the police computer contain the evidence of a burglary?
::::::Are you unaware of the verses in the Bible that say that Jesus was the Creator? I can quote them if you want, but I suspect that you already know them and reject them for some reason.
::::::Why couldn't Jesus have supported that idea?
::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:49, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Additional topic for study for Phillip: Judaism. 12:53, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Petrus' comment of 05:51, 8 April 2007 (EDT) shows but one example of Philip's illogic. Another example would be this sentence, "But why not also hypothesise that Jesus didn't exist, or that the Bible was written by Shakespeare or something?" This is an absurd extrapolation that has no basis in what I said, and as such is an illogical response. Also Philip, while I'm sure you're unaware of this, you should know that for nearly two millenia there have been raging debates within the Chistian community regarding to what extent and where Jesus can use his "supernaural" powers. For example -- for the crucifxion to be a valid sacrifice leading to salvation, Jesus must be all man during that period. Also, early Christianity were beset with a variety of "heresies" (litteraly "schools of thought) that, had they been adopted, would have profoundly changed your current beliefs. See ''Donatism, Manichaeism, Gnosticism, Marcionism, Montanism'' and ''Docetism''. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 07:18, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::It is a rather large extrapolation, to make a point, but it's only an extrapolation, not an example of bad logic. Even if you are correct about Jesus needing to be all man (and I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing), how does that affect what I said? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:49, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I can't think of any convincing evidence from the Bible that Jesus thought he was God, let alone the Creator - so perhaps you'd better enlighten us? Simple references will do. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 10:54, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::I hope you mean that you can't think of any references, rather than you can't think of any "convincing evidence", else I'm probably wasting my time. But here are two (both are talking about Jesus):
{{QuoteBox|In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. (John 1:1-3, NIV)}}
{{QuoteBox|For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. (Colossians 1:16, NIV)}}

:::::::There's also Mark: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."

:::::::As for Jesus himself, there's Matthew 16:13-17, {{QuoteBox|When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.}}
:::::::How do you parse this? It's not clear to me why Jesus consistently prefers to call himself the "Son of man," and the annotation in the Oxford Annotated Bible is rather vague: "''Son of man,'' a title which Jesus used of himself, probably seemed to his listeners to carry either of two meanings: (a) that Jesus called himself a typical human being... or (b) that Jesus ... linked himself to the prophesied figure of Dan.7.13-14... Jesus nowhere fully discloses his own understanding of the term." Still, in the above passage, it seems to me that after Peter calls Jesus "the Son of the living God," Jesus ''endorses this as valid divine revelation to Peter.'' That isn't Jesus calling himself the Son of God, but isn't it awfully close?
:::::::Still, this brings up something that bothers me. When people say "the Bible says," sometimes it means "the Bible says," but quite often it means "someone ''in'' the Bible says."
:::::::For example, "the Bible" indeed says "And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights."
:::::::But "the Bible" does not say "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you." Rather, the Bible says Moses says God said this.
:::::::The problem here is whether or not everybody quoted in the Bible has equal authority. Are we allowed to make such judgements, or not? Does the Bible say "For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing" and "a living dog is better than a dead lion?" If we're allowed to say, "no, that's not God, that's just Solomon," then why aren't we allowed to say about Romans 1:26-27, "no, that's not God, that's just Paul?" If everything in the Bible is of equal authority, then why do some Bibles print the words of Christ in red? If everything in the Bible is of equal authority, then why do so few Christians obey the kosher dietary laws? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:09, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:(reduce indent)Equating Jesus with the nebulous "the Word" requires exegesis based on several bad assumptions. The actor (subject) in Colossians, in both the original Greek and the English, is unclear (likely intentionally), and the verses from 1:10 through 1:20 need to be considered in order for 1:16 to be read properly: it is '''not''' a standalone sentence, it is part of a series of subordinate clauses. Yanking biblical quotes out of context is one of the causes of poor understanding and is certainly poor scholarship. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 13:05, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

== Protected debate page? ==

Whats the deal with the protected debate page? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:57, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:Conservative apparently went on a "Clean up unsourced statements" trip (blocked Hoji in the process for re-inserting things - who then unblocked himself because he's so awesome), not realizing that this is not in the Main space anymore. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:02, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::I then went to delete some other unsourced stuff. But, CPAdmin1 reverted it, and I have asked him why, because this is ridiculous to the Nth degree. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:05, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== This "namespace" is a joke. It claimed people to be scholars who weren't ==

Hoji wrote to me regarding [[Conservapedia:Alleged Bible contradictions]] the following: " It is a Conservapedia: namespace, is NOT AN ARTICLE, and does NOT need citations."

I can't think of anything more detrimental to Conservapedia than to be filled with "Namespaces" (whatever those are) because people can say just about any foolish thing without backing it up.

The "contradiction" page is a monstrosity claiming people to be "critical scholars" who have no real credentials ('''Unix systems engineer'''), etc.

What's with this whole "namespace" idea?

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:13, 5 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

: The namespace means its not a real article and lets people bicker back and foreth without the threat of getting banned. Citations are not needed (unless you presume to go clean up the other Conservapedia namespace articles that lack citations). What are your credentials anyways? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Especially where the introductory remarks merely refer to what ''generally'' happens - on ''both'' sides of the argument! One almost gets the impression that ''somebody'' is afraid to have both sides stated! Such paranoia is both unworthy and unnecessary. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:58, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: *sigh* Ask first, act then. It's not quantum physics. "Namespace" = a sort of container, filled with articles. All regular articles are in the "Main" namespace (for example, [[Theory of evolution]] is in the main namespace). Article Talk pages (like [[Talk:Theory of evolution]]) are in the "Talk" namespace. Same goes for pages in the "Help" namespace (all articles starting with "Help:...") or the "Conservapedia" namespace (like this "article").
:Articles in the "Conservapedia" namespace are NOT regular articles. All debates are in it, along with a few special pages about Conservapedia itself. This "article" was moved from the "Main" namespace to the "Conservapedia" namespace - most likely BECAUSE it's not a normal article and more of a debate.
:As you may have noticed, debates fall a bit out of the normal rules - not everything must be sourced (althouth it helps). Original research and argumentation is naturally a part of a debate, so it's completely counter-intuitive to suddenly "clean up" things - you're destroying a debate archive. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:24, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::This is a prime example of why, instead of reverting blindly without even understanding the Wiki model, you should consult other editors. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:32, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==unwinable battle==
Glad to see that section removed, as it was essentially a big "so what?" Crowing that "noted evangelical scholars" (a bit of an oxymoron) signed such and such petition supporting Bible inerrancy is as valueless as a petition signed by baseball player saying they support baseball. @@ [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:22, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

=="Contradictions need to be proved"==
Looks like a long paragraph of someone's personal opinion. Is there a source somewhere that defines what a "Biblical contradiction" is? A generally accepted rulebook that says whom the "onus" is upon and so forth? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:A biblical contradiction is the same as any other contradictions, and contradictions are generally the responsibility of the speaker/writer or his/her representatives to clear up. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 16:38, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== I do not understand this argument. ==

Could someone please explain to me how anyone in their right mind could think this is a sensible argument to have? The collection of works called the bible was written over thousands of years by a load of different guys in various languages, with different agendas, different points of view, and using their limited understanding of the world as it was at the time they wrote it. Following this, bits were lost, added to, lost again, and then transcribed, translated, re-transcribed, re-translated etc. by a whole load of different guys all struggling to make sense out of a fragmented text in a different language, sno longer spoken. How on earth would anyone expect that there would not be inaccuracies and contradictions arising from that process?

... and if you claim that 'God guided the hand of the writers, translators etc...", think again.
Why on earth (or in heaven) would he bother? Wouldn't it have been much simpler to write the thing once and set it in stone for all time, and ensure that his word was preserved intact? If God actually wanted that, then that was what he would have done. Come on guys, think about it... even if you are a believer, the real point about having a bible is that it does contain inaccuracies. No believer can be 100% sure that God has not deliberately inserted inaccuracies, simply so that mankind is forced into a debate about 'higher' matters, such as his existence, what the passages actually mean, and the moral and ethical debates ensuing; non-believers of couse just say that that it's just a disparate load of stories & prejudices, to be taken with a pinch of salt.

What you cannot claim, by any sensible and logical reading of the situation, is that it is bible infallible. How on earth could it be, or more importantly, why would it be?

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 12:53, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:A very brief answer: In your first paragraph, you are drawing conclusions on the basis of premises that are not accepted by Christians who believe the Bible in inerrant, and you have not shown those premises to be true. In your second paragraph, you are claiming to know what God would think is the best thing to do, and what you consider reasonable. Perhaps He sees it differently to you. The first sentence of your third paragraph amounts to an assertion with no substance. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 13:22, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::(i) You mean that people do not believe that the bible was written over thousands of years by different authors? Where did it come from then?
:: (ii) If I cannot know the mind of God, then how can anyone? In which case how do ''you'' know what I claim about the mind of God isn't true? Surely by claiming that the bible (which you take to be the word of God) is true, ''you'' are claiming to know the mind of God, and are therefore guilty of what I stand accused.
:: (iii) I am not asserting anything in the last sentence; I am denying an assertion made by others on the basis of a logical argument carried out in the two paragraphs above.

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:42, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::# No, I agree it was written over about 2000 years by a number of different authors. But you made a lot more claims that just that.
::::# I'm not saying that nobody can know anything about the mind of God, but to claim to know the ''best'' way for God to have done something presumes that you know all the possible implications of doing it in different ways. It's like a surveyor mapping the best route for a new railway, then you come along and say that it would have been better to go a different way, not realising that the surveyor knew more about the situation than you, and the way you propose has some unstable ground along the route, or some other problem that you hadn't been aware of.
::::# You are asserting that others cannot claim the Bible to be infallible.
::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Philip, look, I'm sure you think I'm being snarky when I say this, but you really need to educate yourself. Cat's slightly off with his/her dating, but not drastically off. The Pentateuch was written over a 160-200 year span beginning about 720 BCE, with the prophetic material being written as late as 100 BCE. The NT was written between the 5th decade of the first century CE up to (possibly) as late as 120 CE, with editing going on into the 3rd century.
:::The relevancy of whether the premises are supported by bible inerrantists escapes me. History is replete with the dogmatic detritus of the denials of reality by various relious sects.
:::Cat's point re the second paragraph is correct -- you base your denial on a circular argument that only true believers of your ilk can "know the mind of god" and the rest of us are bereft of any comprehension. This is an untenable and preposterous argument, a tautology of the first magnitude.
:::What, precisely, is Cat asserting in the third paragraph? Nothing that I can see (other than, perhaps, a disagreement with previous assertions). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:40, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Some people believe that the Pentateuch was written from around 720 B.C. onwards (I know that already, it's not a lack of education on my part), but other people believe differently. If you were unaware of that, perhaps ''you'' need to educate yourself.
::::: I'm sorry that the relevance escapes you, but what you are doing is simply denigrating people who hold a different view by claiming, without evidence, that they are denying reality. How about proving your case (if you can) instead of just throwing insults?
::::: My argument was not tautologous, but perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying and hopefully my reply to CatWatcher has clarified matters.
::::: See my reply to CatWatcher for what she was asserting.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: In paragraph 3 I am contending that no-one could possibly claim that the bible is infallible, either pragmatically or theologically. Pragmatically it is a distillation of different sources which cannot in principle be expected to agree; theologically it must either be fallible or open to doubt. If it is neither, then it is both valid and indisputable. This means that God has provided us with a document which proves his existence; hence faith is not required, as we have his telephone number & address. The fact that he requires us to have faith, means that the bible, in principle must therefore either be fallible or questionable. QED.
--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 18:11, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Works for me. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 19:50, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I'm not sure that I totally follow your reasoning there, but the problem is with your definition of faith, which, biblically, is trust, based on evidence. You seem to be assuming that faith is belief held without evidence. See [http://tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html here] for a better explanation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, Philip, you've proven one of my suspicions -- you ''do'' rely on the exegesis and opinions of other insofar as they suppoort your belief system. Now, try to find, for example, a discussion of faith that is ''not'' from an apologetics site. Faith is very much the belief in things for which there is no logical basis, no physical proof, no evidence (except in the mind of a believer -- the tautology of faith). Why are you seemingly so afraid to go outside the safe realm of apologetics and look into other opnions? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 07:30, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: [[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]]:
::::: 1) Many people do, in fact claim that the Bible is infallible theologically.
::::: 2) A lesser but significant number do claim that the Bible is infallible pragmatically.
::::: 3) "If it happens, it's possible."
::::: 4) Ergo, you must be wrong when you say "no-one could possibly claim" these things.
::::: Take a look at TerryH's comments in the opening paragraphs of [[Conservapedia:Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?]] for an example of someone who takes Biblical accuracy pretty seriously. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:35, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Despite Phil's protestations, faith is defined by believing something ''without'' evidence. Faith is a feeling, often a decision, to believe in something grander than nature/science. When one is overwhelmed with religious feeling or epiphany, this is a subjective phenomenon. As most of us know, applying science to God rarely leaves either smelling right. Dawkins denies the value of the concept of ''nonoverlapping magisteria'', but it really is a useful concept, and probably more so for Theists than Atheists. I don't want someone coming after my faith with an electron microscope.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 14:17, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:PalMD is correct on all counts. Faith is a very personal thing, a subjective experience based as much on a longing for purpose as any active decision to believe, It is also much like a drug -- epiphantic moments trigger the same release of chemicals as most euphoria-causing drugs. There is a close affinity between the faithful and people who are substance-dependant: both need to rely on internalised experience based on an external catalyst to reach some form of temporary fulfillment or psychological rapture/ecstacy. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:29, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Is the Bible Inerrant?

2007-04-08T17:05:38Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* What's this article trying to achieve? */

== Question on the "wise men" ==

The counter-objection to "Who visited Jesus in his crib?" says, "Ah, no - sorry! Merely 'where the young child was'!".

Is this meant as a retraction? If not, perhaps it means that you've missed the point of the objection. The point is that the magi ''didn't'' visit Jesus in the manger/crib/inn, despite all those nativity scenes showing otherwise.

Firstly, the text says that they visited him "in the house". Secondly, they presumably saw the star when he was born, but spent some time travelling to Bethlehem via Jerusalem, with Herod asking them about when they saw the star. Thirdly, presumably on the basis of their answer, Herod had all the boys up to two years old. Taken together, all these clues indicate that whilst the shepherds visited the new-born Jesus, the magi visited the toddler Jesus up to two years later.

Ergo, no contradiction.

By the way, it's good to see you remove a couple of "contradictions". Keep doing that and you'll eventually have to admit that there are none! :-)

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:31, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Keep going yourself, and you'll hang yourself eventually! ;0) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:35, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
::Why do we even have this list? It's all context switching!--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 12:46, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I don't understand what you mean by "context switching".
:::I'm sure from Petrus' point of view, this article (which he created as "Bible Contradictions") is intended to show that the Bible has mistakes, so cannot be infallible.
:::From my point of view, this article is/can-be useful to show (a) that many of the common bibliosceptic attacks on the Bible are just silly, and (b) the more legitimate criticisms do have answers.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:31, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Not sure about the 'context-switching'. Personally, I'm not referring to 'contexts', but merely listing texts that appear to contradict each other. If others insist on bringing in 'contexts' to justify their objections (which usually means 'interpretations'), good luck to them - but it will merely weaken their case. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:33, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::You miss the beauty of exegesis, Petre, one can make the bible say virtually anything. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:18, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:As certain people, with their constant recourse to exegetical twisters, should have realised by now! ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:35, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::No doubt. But I wonder if they've realised that in the process they've made the Bible say virtually nothing -- it all becomes a maddening din of pseudo-hosannahs, the rumblings of a schizophrenic god and apoplectic apocalypses. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 06:07, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Especially as ''Hosanna'' means, not 'Hooray', but 'Save us now' - so they can't have shouted ''Hosanna '''to'''...'' anyone! ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:31, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Why ==
Why is there discussion going on '''in''' the article? [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 12:48, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:The only reason one may need to resolve possible contradictions of the Bible is to shore-up the belief that it needs to be taken literally, whenever possible.
:If one allows for errors in the Bible then the whole makes more than the sum of the parts.[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 12:52, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, why have an "article" which is a debate? The debate (if we really need one) should be here and later put to the article.--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 12:55, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:It's a moot point. The article was never designed to be a discussion - merely a listing of points pro and con, which is perfectly legitimate IMO. Call it an 'interactive article' if you like - but I don't see why an article shouldn't be interactive in a 'live' encyclopedia. Rather that than the uneditable, monolithic, ''ex cathedra'' pronouncements elsewhere in Conservapedia!... --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::'''Rob Pommer''': Answering alleged contradictions is not to shore up belief, but to refute bibliosceptical attacks on the Bible: "''We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God...''" (2 Corinthians 10:5, NIV). I don't follow the logic of your second point about the sum of the parts.
:::'''Rob Pommer''' and''' bill m''': I'm not comfortable with the format. I think it should be in the form of the criticism (the alleged contradiction) and an objection to it. To have an objection to the objection, and an objection to the objection to the objection , does get rather silly.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:40, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, that's true. Let's try and keep it down to an objection and a possible counter-objection wherever possible. Leave the reader to decide on the merits of that. In any case, keep it brief, and don't drag in all kinds of external commentators to try and argue the case by flattening the opposition, other than by footnote-reference. You may have noticed that ''my'' sole references are to the texts themselves. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::You used the actual texts? How quaint. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:19, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== Poor Bible exegesis offered at this ==

I believe there is very poor [[Bible exegesis]] offered at this article. I put some sources at the beginning of the article in order to give readers an alternative.

Specifically, I offered these web resources:

http://www.tektonics.org/index2.html

http://www.inerrancy.org/

http://www.christian-thinktank.com

http://www.apologeticspress.org/allegeddiscrepancies/

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Conservative, perhaps you missed that two of those sites were already used in some of the objections. But thanks for adding the other two. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:43, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::But in that case shouldn't some skeptical sources be linked, too? In its original format, the article didn't cite ''any'' critical sources - for either side. In fact, in my view, that is much the best idea. Originally it didn't have anything to do with exegesis - merely with what the texts actually say. Citing exterior sources (other than the texts themselves) merely drags in a whole 'war of the commentators' that can only lead to just as much confusion and uncertainty as before. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:50, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes indeedy they should.
:::Still missing the beauty of exigesis, though eh? I mean, think of all the really neat things Nostradamus never said but really did per the use of a non-biblical form of exegesis. Think of all of the UFO mysteries that are cleared up in the same fashion. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==Not to be nit-picky but...==
The portion:
''*Can the Sun and Moon ever appear together in the sky at the same time?''

''Psalm 136:8-9 No. God created "The sun to rule by day...The moon and stars to rule by night."
Genesis 1:16: No. God created "two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night..."''

''Objection 2: The passages in Psalms and Genesis should be taken figuratively rather than literally and thus do not mean that the Moon is always visible at night, nor that it is never visible during the day.''

I'd advise caution here unless it is your intent TO bring up the "when do we '''know''' we're ''supposed'' to take the Bible literally and when to take it figuratively" argument.
Not really a point, just an observation.--[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 09:47, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:I suppose the real issue here is that one cannot claim infallibility when one ceases to be literal. Once one wanders of into the realm of allegory and uses figurative devices "truth" becomes subjective. In other words, the Bible is either the literal truth or it's allegory, but once you allow for the latter you can lay no claim to the former. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 06:02, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::So are you suggesting that if someone you were talking to on the telephone said that "it's raining cats and dogs here", you would have no idea whether or not that was literally true? Is it not the case that metaphor, parable, analogy, etc. can be recognised by the context and/or the language, and that it is therefore possible to take literally the parts that are meant to be taken literally whilst acknowledging the existence of non-literal parts? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Most people I know don't claim to be infallible. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:Philip, your argument falls apart for several reasons. Myk has pointed out one of them: if no claim of infallibility is made or implied, there is no reason to assume same. Another is that as many literalists purport that every word of the bible is the infallible word of God, they simply can't turn around and say, "oh, that part? that's just a story". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 05:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::I couldn't actually see the point of Myk's comment. Claiming or not claiming infallibility says nothing about whether or not something is metaphor, parable, etc.
::I think you've got the wrong idea about infallibility. Christians believe that the entire Bible is inspired by God and is therefore infallible, but that means that it infallibly records people doing the wrong thing, infallibly records the lies that people told, etc. It does ''not'' mean that every word is literally true and that literary devices such as metaphor and parable are not used.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:49, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Clarity in language is important. If something is claimed to be infallible, it best be awfully clear in its language. Go up to someone who has just learned how to speak English and tell them it's raining cats and dogs, see what kind of reaction you get. Further, in biblical times a rain of cats and dogs doesn't seem that implausible (see: Plague of Frogs).

:::Literal truth of the bible means just that. Literal, not metaphorical. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:52, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::That something claimed to be infallible should be clear is your opinion, not a requirement of infallibility.
:::::We are talking about infallibility, not literalism. Despite NousEpirrhytos' comment below, they are two distinct concepts. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Myk, I think we're arguing logic with the wrong person. BTW, Phil, generally speaking infallible, inerrant and literal are used interchangeably when used by fundamentalists and evangelicals.
::::Another BTW, Phil, do you claim to speak for all Christians? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 18:45, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::I disagree that "infallible" and "inerrant" are ''generally'' used interchangeably with "literal" when used by fundamentalists and evangelicals. Perhaps some uninformed Christians use them interchangeably, but they are clearly different things. I see bibliosceptics conflating them more than I see Christians conflating them. ("Infallible" and "inerrant" may be used interchangeably, as they are very close if not identical in meaning.)
:::::Of course I don't claim to speak for all Christians. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::You are of course free to your own opinion. Unfortunately as I have seen (in print) and heard Biblethumpers using the words interchangeably, I really can't agree with you.
::::But, y'know what cracks me up, your use of "bibliosceptics", a neologism that does not mean what you think it does (look up "bibliophile" and ye shall find understanding). In any case, you seem to think that treating the bible just like one would treat any other book is a bad thing -- in reality, in casting a critical eye on books one can gain much wisdom. Alas, I suppose you're content to settle for a belief in salvation, staying far away from the tree of knowledge (after all, you might find that some things you thought to be good are evil, and those you thought to be evil, good). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 18:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== What's this article trying to achieve? ==

Actually, I think the answer to that question, as far as the original editor is concerned, is obvious. It's to discredit the Bible as the infallible Word of God. My reason for having it (as I added to it) is to demonstrate that the alleged contradictions are not in fact contradictions.

But...

Is it the intention to list every "contradiction" ever ''claimed''? Because if it is, there is no way to achieve that without making the page ridiculously large. Perhaps it is to just show a few samples? But so far there's been no discussion about what sorts of alleged contradictions should be included.

And frankly, many of the allegations are plain silly. In fact I quoted someone saying that about one of the alleged contradictions, and Petrus [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Alleged_Bible_contradictions&diff=72033&oldid=72032 removed] the comment. Fair enough, it was supposed to be an answer to the allegation, not a commentary on the allegation, so I didn't restore it. But it needs to be said somewhere. Let's look at this one a bit closer, because it epitomises the problems with the list.

Two sayings (aka proverbs) that most would be familiar with are:
* Many hands make light work.
* Too many cooks spoil the broth.
Are these two sayings contradictory? Taken literally, then yes they are. But does anyone object to them on those grounds? Of course not. Despite them probably being coined by different people at different times, the validity of both is accepted, because neither claims to be always true and both have their place. Sometimes, more helpers ease the burden on others, but at other times too many people result in them getting in each other's way.

So what are we to make of a proverb in the Bible that says, 'Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes."? Is this seriously a contradiction, or like the saying above, are both sentences true in some cases?

To claim that they are contradictory, one must:
* Ignore the fact that they are ''sayings'', not truth-claims that have no exceptions, and read the text literally. Bibliosceptics love to criticise Creationists and fundamentalists for reading the Bible literally, despite them repeatedly saying that they only do this where it was ''meant'' literally, whilst still recognising metaphors, parables, etc. Yet here we have a bibliosceptic reading the text literally in order to make a claim of a contradiction.
* Presume that the original author was so incompetent that he would write two consecutive sentences contradicting each other, apparently without realising it.
* Further presume that many others who included the book of Proverbs in the canon, or who copied it over and over, or who write commentaries on it, are also so incompetent that they never noticed the "contradiction".
* Reject these sorts of explanations and maintain that it ''is'' a contradiction, with the astounding observation that the text doesn't say "this", meaning the answer given. Well the sayings above don't say that they are both true in different circumstances either, but that is something people are simply expected to understand.

Then we have the case of the number of stables that Solomon had. Christians who believe that the Bible is infallible do not believe that all human translations and copies are infallible, but that the original autographs were (although they do believe that the copies are very accurate copies). So if they ''occasionally'' answer that an apparent contradiction is a copyist error (as in the case of the number of stables), it does ''not'' follow that the Bible is therefore not infallible, except in the mind of the bibliosceptic who is doing his best to find all the contradictions he can, perhaps to bolster his own faith. Keep in mind that the answer to that "contradiction" included a link (and remember that Petrus doesn't want to include links) that explained all that. Neither does he want the sort of long explanations that including all that in the article would entail.

I'm not saying that all claimed contradictions are silly. Some claims of contradictions are fair enough, in that they really do ''appear'' to be contradictions, and deserve to be answered. The number of stables one is an example, but the article should state the apparent contradiction, provide the answer, and leave it at that.

In summary, many claimed contradictions in the Bible are nothing more than bibliosceptics grasping at straws and applying criteria that they wouldn't apply in any other situation, in order to try and prove their viewpoint that the Bible is fallible. I don't believe that this article should waste its time on those sorts of "contradictions".

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Hmmm....shall I take the time to point out all of the fallacies of the above? Part of me would like to write a long refutation, but the wiser part knows this to be fruitless. So, I'll just give one example:
:<nowiki>*</nowiki> Many hands make light work. <nowiki>*</nowiki> Too many cooks spoil the broth. You're assuming that the statements are equal but there is a quantitative difference: yes, many hands may make the work easier but at a certain point, the people begin tripping over each other and thus, as they actually impede the work, there is a point, the ''ne plus ultra'', that tips the balance from a comfy many to a disastrous too many. No contradiction. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 05:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Thank you for supporting my point! To quote Petrus' counter-objection to the very "contradiction" I was discussing here, "'''But the text does not actually say this.'''"
:: I figured it would probably be fruitless to convince you blokes too, but I tried anyway.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::While we're on the topic:
::::"He who hesitates is lost" / "Look before you leap"
::::"Cut your losses and let your profits run" / "Buy low, sell high."
::::"Absence makes the heart grow fonder" / "Out of sight, out of mind"
::::"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again." / "Don't beat a dead horse."
:::::19:45, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Excellent examples! - in fact there are few well-known proverbs that don't also have their opposites. But then that makes the point perfectly. No given 'pair' is likely to have been produced by the same person. Their very oppositeness suggests different hands with different views, ''not a single, monolithic author''.

And no, my purpose wasn't 'to discredit the Bible as the infallible Word of God' - merely to provoke people actually to look at the words (in some cases, apparently for the first time!) and decide for themselves whether that proposition is really tenable in the light of the facts. Thus, 'to discredit ''the dogma'' that the Bible is the infallible Word of God', possibly. But about the Bible I'm perfectly neutral. It's indubitably there, and it indubitably says what it says. I merely urge that people read it through clear glass, not stained glass. It's better for the eyes, you know!--[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:45, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:Yet you appear to be reading it through the eyes of a hyper-literalist, rather than as it was meant to be understood. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

How do you know how it is "meant" to be understood? How do you know, for instance, that Genesis 1 was meant to be understood literally? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 18:54, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

...other than by reading it through stained glass? Why can't the text simply be allowed to say what it says, warts and all, without imposing your own dogmas and preconceptions on it - such as the man-made myth of God-given infallibility? Isn't this perilously close to ''biblolatry'', in direct infringement of the spirit of the second commandment? Do you honestly think the Bible needs ''your'' protection from the light of reality, let alone that of all the commentators whom Conservative seems intent on importing into the argument? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:53, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:As noted above, it is best to read the bible in a literary manner, that is to say, the same way you'd read any other book. I've always been amused by folks who dismiss Odysseus tricking the cyclops to save his men as far-fetched mythology and yet cling to the almost parallel David v Goliath story. Both stories are allegorical myths, not litteral renderings of "history". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::You determine how something is meant to be understood by the language used (e.g., does it conform to the style of poetry, narrative, etc.?), and by the culture for whom it was written. If, for example, a sentence said "The rock landed on the marquee", would you understand it to mean that the rock landed on a large tent, or on a canopy projecting out over the entrance to a large building? The correct answer depends on whether the writer was writing for an Australian or British audience, or an American audience. You can also look at how others who would know how to read it understood it, if such records exist. For example, Jesus referred to various aspects of the Genesis narrative as though it was historical fact; He didn't understand it as allegorical myth. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:48, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Precisely. The Genesis narrative was written for (and by) a people living nearly three thousand years ago, and Jesus lived two thousand years ago. That cultural difference is the whole explanation of why the narrative doesn't say, 'The Earth was formed as a result of the agglomeration of cosmic dust some 4,500 million years ago', and why Jesus didn't understand it that way: none of the concepts involved was understood at the time. (Just as well that, as a healer, he had never heard of the symptomatology of schizophrenia!) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Jesus was the Creator, so he would know, and He endorsed what Genesis said. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Well, technically, the only thing we know is that second-hand accounts claimed that Jesus endorsed what Genesis said. We ain't got nothin' from Jesus himself. Jesus didn't write anything. --[[User:ReaganLives|ReaganLives]] 08:46, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::If you want to get technical about it, the ultimate author of the Bible was God, Jesus is God, ergo Jesus is the author of the Bible, so we do have it from Jesus Himself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::I think Jesus is inerrant, therefore he couldn't have written the Bible. Too many internal consistencies. Why don't you believe Jesus is inerrant? Are you a liberal? --[[User:ReaganLives|ReaganLives]] 12:55, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Or so it's reported in the Gospels.
:Also, if you read the bible in the cultural context, something that is part of any literary reading or scholarship, you'd understand why, for example, the creation stories are written as they are. They are attempts to explain the then unknowable "whence came we?", but from different perspectives, separated in time by about 160 years. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 09:11, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::I agree that it should be understood in its cultural context; that's effectively one of the things I've been saying. But I disagree that the cultural context is that of trying to explain the unknowable. If the Bible is correct, the "unknowable" was revealed by God, thus known. I don't understand the reference to 160 years. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:20, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Then, I would suggest you indulge your curiosity in some real Bible scholarship, rather than reading only those interpretations meant to make members of the evangelical community feel more secure in their ''argumenta ad ignoratium''. I can suggest two well-respected books, based on true interdisciplinary scholarship, if you wish.
:::BTW, what's with the edit summary "Jesus knew"? -- how would you (or anyone else for that matter) know what Jesus "knew". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 16:20, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the condescending remarks. As the Creator, Jesus obviously knew how creation occurred. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:43, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Unless, of course, he wasn't and didn't. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:14, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Vero, Petre. Interesting that Philip states religious dogma as fact. Note, Philip, that I did not use the theological title "Christ" (i.e., Jesus as God), but rather used his human name, thus referring to Jesus as a man. Thus, having clarified my question, I shall ask again: how would you (or anyone else for that matter) know what Jesus "knew". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:10, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: I was stating it in a matter-of-fact way because I was answering the question of how Jesus would know. That's how He would know, and in that context it was proper to put it in that way.
:::: I fail to grasp the distinction that you are making between Jesus as God and Jesus as man, therefore my answer stands. Are you suggesting that the man Jesus was totally oblivious to what He had done as God?
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::''Who said'' Jesus is God? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:58, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::The Bible does. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:39, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::But the Koran doesn't - and the Koran is the Word of God. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 10:54, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::So? You asked who does say it, and the Bible does say it, so the Koran ''not'' saying it doesn't change that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:37, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Further proof of the need to read. I'm talking about assuming Jesus to be just a man, not a god. Try to consider that possibility...it will not harm your faith and you might even learn something in the process. Also, why not try (if you haven't, already) reading the bible without relying on exegesis or the opinions of others, there again you might learn something.
:::Obviously, I have no ken of precisely what you know or think, but it seems, based on what you've written here, that your knowledge is limited to monolithic dogma and that you might think that those of us who see the bible as a book are bereft of biblical knowledge (in the true sense, not some cosmic exegetical sense). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 10:50, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Hey, if you want to get hypothetical and propose that Jesus was not God at all, then sure, he would not have known. But why not also hypothesise that Jesus didn't exist, or that the Bible was written by Shakespeare or something? The point is that I was answering a question about how I would know how Genesis was intended to be understood, and part of my answer was to rely on what Jesus understood it to mean. By "Jesus", I mean the bloke in the New Testament who was actually God and who was actually the Creator. That's what '''I''' meant by "Jesus". The response was to ask how Jesus would know if he ''wasn't'' God. Well sure, if He wasn't God, he wouldn't know, but I was answering the question according to my understanding of who Jesus was. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:49, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::On the basis of what evidence? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:55, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::The Bible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:39, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, this discussion has gone as far as it can. The illogic displayed by Philip is a clear indication that he is not willing to learn anything, and that his lithocephalic attachment to what he "believes" will neither allow him to learn nor to debate in a rational manner. Sad, really. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:59, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::So now you accuse me of being illogical without showing that I have been illogical. Nice. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:47, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::'The Bible' (a whole library of different books, most of which don't even mention Jesus at all) is not evidence, any more than 'the police department's computer' is evidence that Joe Bloggs burgled your house. Cite the precise evidence that Jesus is God, or stop making such absurd claims as that he was the Creator (which even most traditional Christians don't believe) - ideas which, as a faithful Jew, he cannot possibly have supported himself. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:51, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::I can't see the analogy between the Bible and the police computer, but why can't the police computer contain the evidence of a burglary?
::::::Are you unaware of the verses in the Bible that say that Jesus was the Creator? I can quote them if you want, but I suspect that you already know them and reject them for some reason.
::::::Why couldn't Jesus have supported that idea?
::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:49, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Additional topic for study for Phillip: Judaism. 12:53, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Petrus' comment of 05:51, 8 April 2007 (EDT) shows but one example of Philip's illogic. Another example would be this sentence, "But why not also hypothesise that Jesus didn't exist, or that the Bible was written by Shakespeare or something?" This is an absurd extrapolation that has no basis in what I said, and as such is an illogical response. Also Philip, while I'm sure you're unaware of this, you should know that for nearly two millenia there have been raging debates within the Chistian community regarding to what extent and where Jesus can use his "supernaural" powers. For example -- for the crucifxion to be a valid sacrifice leading to salvation, Jesus must be all man during that period. Also, early Christianity were beset with a variety of "heresies" (litteraly "schools of thought) that, had they been adopted, would have profoundly changed your current beliefs. See ''Donatism, Manichaeism, Gnosticism, Marcionism, Montanism'' and ''Docetism''. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 07:18, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::It is a rather large extrapolation, to make a point, but it's only an extrapolation, not an example of bad logic. Even if you are correct about Jesus needing to be all man (and I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing), how does that affect what I said? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:49, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I can't think of any convincing evidence from the Bible that Jesus thought he was God, let alone the Creator - so perhaps you'd better enlighten us? Simple references will do. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 10:54, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::I hope you mean that you can't think of any references, rather than you can't think of any "convincing evidence", else I'm probably wasting my time. But here are two (both are talking about Jesus):
{{QuoteBox|In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. (John 1:1-3, NIV)}}
{{QuoteBox|For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. (Colossians 1:16, NIV)}}

:(reduce indent)Equating Jesus with the nebulous "the Word" requires exegesis based on several bad assumptions. The actor (subject) in Colossians, in both the original Greek and the English, is unclear (likely intentionally), and the verses from 1:10 through 1:20 need to be considered in order for 1:16 to be read properly: it is '''not''' a standalone sentence, it is part of a series of subordinate clauses. Yanking biblical quotes out of context is one of the causes of poor understanding and is certainly poor scholarship. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 13:05, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

== Protected debate page? ==

Whats the deal with the protected debate page? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:57, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:Conservative apparently went on a "Clean up unsourced statements" trip (blocked Hoji in the process for re-inserting things - who then unblocked himself because he's so awesome), not realizing that this is not in the Main space anymore. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:02, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::I then went to delete some other unsourced stuff. But, CPAdmin1 reverted it, and I have asked him why, because this is ridiculous to the Nth degree. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:05, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== This "namespace" is a joke. It claimed people to be scholars who weren't ==

Hoji wrote to me regarding [[Conservapedia:Alleged Bible contradictions]] the following: " It is a Conservapedia: namespace, is NOT AN ARTICLE, and does NOT need citations."

I can't think of anything more detrimental to Conservapedia than to be filled with "Namespaces" (whatever those are) because people can say just about any foolish thing without backing it up.

The "contradiction" page is a monstrosity claiming people to be "critical scholars" who have no real credentials ('''Unix systems engineer'''), etc.

What's with this whole "namespace" idea?

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:13, 5 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

: The namespace means its not a real article and lets people bicker back and foreth without the threat of getting banned. Citations are not needed (unless you presume to go clean up the other Conservapedia namespace articles that lack citations). What are your credentials anyways? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Especially where the introductory remarks merely refer to what ''generally'' happens - on ''both'' sides of the argument! One almost gets the impression that ''somebody'' is afraid to have both sides stated! Such paranoia is both unworthy and unnecessary. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:58, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: *sigh* Ask first, act then. It's not quantum physics. "Namespace" = a sort of container, filled with articles. All regular articles are in the "Main" namespace (for example, [[Theory of evolution]] is in the main namespace). Article Talk pages (like [[Talk:Theory of evolution]]) are in the "Talk" namespace. Same goes for pages in the "Help" namespace (all articles starting with "Help:...") or the "Conservapedia" namespace (like this "article").
:Articles in the "Conservapedia" namespace are NOT regular articles. All debates are in it, along with a few special pages about Conservapedia itself. This "article" was moved from the "Main" namespace to the "Conservapedia" namespace - most likely BECAUSE it's not a normal article and more of a debate.
:As you may have noticed, debates fall a bit out of the normal rules - not everything must be sourced (althouth it helps). Original research and argumentation is naturally a part of a debate, so it's completely counter-intuitive to suddenly "clean up" things - you're destroying a debate archive. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:24, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::This is a prime example of why, instead of reverting blindly without even understanding the Wiki model, you should consult other editors. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:32, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==unwinable battle==
Glad to see that section removed, as it was essentially a big "so what?" Crowing that "noted evangelical scholars" (a bit of an oxymoron) signed such and such petition supporting Bible inerrancy is as valueless as a petition signed by baseball player saying they support baseball. @@ [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:22, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

=="Contradictions need to be proved"==
Looks like a long paragraph of someone's personal opinion. Is there a source somewhere that defines what a "Biblical contradiction" is? A generally accepted rulebook that says whom the "onus" is upon and so forth? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:A biblical contradiction is the same as any other contradictions, and contradictions are generally the responsibility of the speaker/writer or his/her representatives to clear up. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 16:38, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== I do not understand this argument. ==

Could someone please explain to me how anyone in their right mind could think this is a sensible argument to have? The collection of works called the bible was written over thousands of years by a load of different guys in various languages, with different agendas, different points of view, and using their limited understanding of the world as it was at the time they wrote it. Following this, bits were lost, added to, lost again, and then transcribed, translated, re-transcribed, re-translated etc. by a whole load of different guys all struggling to make sense out of a fragmented text in a different language, sno longer spoken. How on earth would anyone expect that there would not be inaccuracies and contradictions arising from that process?

... and if you claim that 'God guided the hand of the writers, translators etc...", think again.
Why on earth (or in heaven) would he bother? Wouldn't it have been much simpler to write the thing once and set it in stone for all time, and ensure that his word was preserved intact? If God actually wanted that, then that was what he would have done. Come on guys, think about it... even if you are a believer, the real point about having a bible is that it does contain inaccuracies. No believer can be 100% sure that God has not deliberately inserted inaccuracies, simply so that mankind is forced into a debate about 'higher' matters, such as his existence, what the passages actually mean, and the moral and ethical debates ensuing; non-believers of couse just say that that it's just a disparate load of stories & prejudices, to be taken with a pinch of salt.

What you cannot claim, by any sensible and logical reading of the situation, is that it is bible infallible. How on earth could it be, or more importantly, why would it be?

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 12:53, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:A very brief answer: In your first paragraph, you are drawing conclusions on the basis of premises that are not accepted by Christians who believe the Bible in inerrant, and you have not shown those premises to be true. In your second paragraph, you are claiming to know what God would think is the best thing to do, and what you consider reasonable. Perhaps He sees it differently to you. The first sentence of your third paragraph amounts to an assertion with no substance. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 13:22, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::(i) You mean that people do not believe that the bible was written over thousands of years by different authors? Where did it come from then?
:: (ii) If I cannot know the mind of God, then how can anyone? In which case how do ''you'' know what I claim about the mind of God isn't true? Surely by claiming that the bible (which you take to be the word of God) is true, ''you'' are claiming to know the mind of God, and are therefore guilty of what I stand accused.
:: (iii) I am not asserting anything in the last sentence; I am denying an assertion made by others on the basis of a logical argument carried out in the two paragraphs above.

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:42, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::# No, I agree it was written over about 2000 years by a number of different authors. But you made a lot more claims that just that.
::::# I'm not saying that nobody can know anything about the mind of God, but to claim to know the ''best'' way for God to have done something presumes that you know all the possible implications of doing it in different ways. It's like a surveyor mapping the best route for a new railway, then you come along and say that it would have been better to go a different way, not realising that the surveyor knew more about the situation than you, and the way you propose has some unstable ground along the route, or some other problem that you hadn't been aware of.
::::# You are asserting that others cannot claim the Bible to be infallible.
::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Philip, look, I'm sure you think I'm being snarky when I say this, but you really need to educate yourself. Cat's slightly off with his/her dating, but not drastically off. The Pentateuch was written over a 160-200 year span beginning about 720 BCE, with the prophetic material being written as late as 100 BCE. The NT was written between the 5th decade of the first century CE up to (possibly) as late as 120 CE, with editing going on into the 3rd century.
:::The relevancy of whether the premises are supported by bible inerrantists escapes me. History is replete with the dogmatic detritus of the denials of reality by various relious sects.
:::Cat's point re the second paragraph is correct -- you base your denial on a circular argument that only true believers of your ilk can "know the mind of god" and the rest of us are bereft of any comprehension. This is an untenable and preposterous argument, a tautology of the first magnitude.
:::What, precisely, is Cat asserting in the third paragraph? Nothing that I can see (other than, perhaps, a disagreement with previous assertions). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:40, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Some people believe that the Pentateuch was written from around 720 B.C. onwards (I know that already, it's not a lack of education on my part), but other people believe differently. If you were unaware of that, perhaps ''you'' need to educate yourself.
::::: I'm sorry that the relevance escapes you, but what you are doing is simply denigrating people who hold a different view by claiming, without evidence, that they are denying reality. How about proving your case (if you can) instead of just throwing insults?
::::: My argument was not tautologous, but perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying and hopefully my reply to CatWatcher has clarified matters.
::::: See my reply to CatWatcher for what she was asserting.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: In paragraph 3 I am contending that no-one could possibly claim that the bible is infallible, either pragmatically or theologically. Pragmatically it is a distillation of different sources which cannot in principle be expected to agree; theologically it must either be fallible or open to doubt. If it is neither, then it is both valid and indisputable. This means that God has provided us with a document which proves his existence; hence faith is not required, as we have his telephone number & address. The fact that he requires us to have faith, means that the bible, in principle must therefore either be fallible or questionable. QED.
--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 18:11, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Works for me. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 19:50, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I'm not sure that I totally follow your reasoning there, but the problem is with your definition of faith, which, biblically, is trust, based on evidence. You seem to be assuming that faith is belief held without evidence. See [http://tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html here] for a better explanation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, Philip, you've proven one of my suspicions -- you ''do'' rely on the exegesis and opinions of other insofar as they suppoort your belief system. Now, try to find, for example, a discussion of faith that is ''not'' from an apologetics site. Faith is very much the belief in things for which there is no logical basis, no physical proof, no evidence (except in the mind of a believer -- the tautology of faith). Why are you seemingly so afraid to go outside the safe realm of apologetics and look into other opnions? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 07:30, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: [[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]]:
::::: 1) Many people do, in fact claim that the Bible is infallible theologically.
::::: 2) A lesser but significant number do claim that the Bible is infallible pragmatically.
::::: 3) "If it happens, it's possible."
::::: 4) Ergo, you must be wrong when you say "no-one could possibly claim" these things.
::::: Take a look at TerryH's comments in the opening paragraphs of [[Conservapedia:Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?]] for an example of someone who takes Biblical accuracy pretty seriously. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:35, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Is the Bible Inerrant?

2007-04-08T16:53:39Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* What's this article trying to achieve? */

== Question on the "wise men" ==

The counter-objection to "Who visited Jesus in his crib?" says, "Ah, no - sorry! Merely 'where the young child was'!".

Is this meant as a retraction? If not, perhaps it means that you've missed the point of the objection. The point is that the magi ''didn't'' visit Jesus in the manger/crib/inn, despite all those nativity scenes showing otherwise.

Firstly, the text says that they visited him "in the house". Secondly, they presumably saw the star when he was born, but spent some time travelling to Bethlehem via Jerusalem, with Herod asking them about when they saw the star. Thirdly, presumably on the basis of their answer, Herod had all the boys up to two years old. Taken together, all these clues indicate that whilst the shepherds visited the new-born Jesus, the magi visited the toddler Jesus up to two years later.

Ergo, no contradiction.

By the way, it's good to see you remove a couple of "contradictions". Keep doing that and you'll eventually have to admit that there are none! :-)

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:31, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Keep going yourself, and you'll hang yourself eventually! ;0) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:35, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
::Why do we even have this list? It's all context switching!--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 12:46, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I don't understand what you mean by "context switching".
:::I'm sure from Petrus' point of view, this article (which he created as "Bible Contradictions") is intended to show that the Bible has mistakes, so cannot be infallible.
:::From my point of view, this article is/can-be useful to show (a) that many of the common bibliosceptic attacks on the Bible are just silly, and (b) the more legitimate criticisms do have answers.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:31, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Not sure about the 'context-switching'. Personally, I'm not referring to 'contexts', but merely listing texts that appear to contradict each other. If others insist on bringing in 'contexts' to justify their objections (which usually means 'interpretations'), good luck to them - but it will merely weaken their case. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:33, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::You miss the beauty of exegesis, Petre, one can make the bible say virtually anything. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:18, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:As certain people, with their constant recourse to exegetical twisters, should have realised by now! ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:35, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::No doubt. But I wonder if they've realised that in the process they've made the Bible say virtually nothing -- it all becomes a maddening din of pseudo-hosannahs, the rumblings of a schizophrenic god and apoplectic apocalypses. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 06:07, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Especially as ''Hosanna'' means, not 'Hooray', but 'Save us now' - so they can't have shouted ''Hosanna '''to'''...'' anyone! ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:31, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Why ==
Why is there discussion going on '''in''' the article? [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 12:48, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:The only reason one may need to resolve possible contradictions of the Bible is to shore-up the belief that it needs to be taken literally, whenever possible.
:If one allows for errors in the Bible then the whole makes more than the sum of the parts.[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 12:52, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, why have an "article" which is a debate? The debate (if we really need one) should be here and later put to the article.--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 12:55, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:It's a moot point. The article was never designed to be a discussion - merely a listing of points pro and con, which is perfectly legitimate IMO. Call it an 'interactive article' if you like - but I don't see why an article shouldn't be interactive in a 'live' encyclopedia. Rather that than the uneditable, monolithic, ''ex cathedra'' pronouncements elsewhere in Conservapedia!... --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::'''Rob Pommer''': Answering alleged contradictions is not to shore up belief, but to refute bibliosceptical attacks on the Bible: "''We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God...''" (2 Corinthians 10:5, NIV). I don't follow the logic of your second point about the sum of the parts.
:::'''Rob Pommer''' and''' bill m''': I'm not comfortable with the format. I think it should be in the form of the criticism (the alleged contradiction) and an objection to it. To have an objection to the objection, and an objection to the objection to the objection , does get rather silly.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:40, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, that's true. Let's try and keep it down to an objection and a possible counter-objection wherever possible. Leave the reader to decide on the merits of that. In any case, keep it brief, and don't drag in all kinds of external commentators to try and argue the case by flattening the opposition, other than by footnote-reference. You may have noticed that ''my'' sole references are to the texts themselves. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::You used the actual texts? How quaint. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:19, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== Poor Bible exegesis offered at this ==

I believe there is very poor [[Bible exegesis]] offered at this article. I put some sources at the beginning of the article in order to give readers an alternative.

Specifically, I offered these web resources:

http://www.tektonics.org/index2.html

http://www.inerrancy.org/

http://www.christian-thinktank.com

http://www.apologeticspress.org/allegeddiscrepancies/

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Conservative, perhaps you missed that two of those sites were already used in some of the objections. But thanks for adding the other two. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:43, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::But in that case shouldn't some skeptical sources be linked, too? In its original format, the article didn't cite ''any'' critical sources - for either side. In fact, in my view, that is much the best idea. Originally it didn't have anything to do with exegesis - merely with what the texts actually say. Citing exterior sources (other than the texts themselves) merely drags in a whole 'war of the commentators' that can only lead to just as much confusion and uncertainty as before. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:50, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes indeedy they should.
:::Still missing the beauty of exigesis, though eh? I mean, think of all the really neat things Nostradamus never said but really did per the use of a non-biblical form of exegesis. Think of all of the UFO mysteries that are cleared up in the same fashion. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==Not to be nit-picky but...==
The portion:
''*Can the Sun and Moon ever appear together in the sky at the same time?''

''Psalm 136:8-9 No. God created "The sun to rule by day...The moon and stars to rule by night."
Genesis 1:16: No. God created "two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night..."''

''Objection 2: The passages in Psalms and Genesis should be taken figuratively rather than literally and thus do not mean that the Moon is always visible at night, nor that it is never visible during the day.''

I'd advise caution here unless it is your intent TO bring up the "when do we '''know''' we're ''supposed'' to take the Bible literally and when to take it figuratively" argument.
Not really a point, just an observation.--[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 09:47, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:I suppose the real issue here is that one cannot claim infallibility when one ceases to be literal. Once one wanders of into the realm of allegory and uses figurative devices "truth" becomes subjective. In other words, the Bible is either the literal truth or it's allegory, but once you allow for the latter you can lay no claim to the former. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 06:02, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::So are you suggesting that if someone you were talking to on the telephone said that "it's raining cats and dogs here", you would have no idea whether or not that was literally true? Is it not the case that metaphor, parable, analogy, etc. can be recognised by the context and/or the language, and that it is therefore possible to take literally the parts that are meant to be taken literally whilst acknowledging the existence of non-literal parts? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Most people I know don't claim to be infallible. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:Philip, your argument falls apart for several reasons. Myk has pointed out one of them: if no claim of infallibility is made or implied, there is no reason to assume same. Another is that as many literalists purport that every word of the bible is the infallible word of God, they simply can't turn around and say, "oh, that part? that's just a story". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 05:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::I couldn't actually see the point of Myk's comment. Claiming or not claiming infallibility says nothing about whether or not something is metaphor, parable, etc.
::I think you've got the wrong idea about infallibility. Christians believe that the entire Bible is inspired by God and is therefore infallible, but that means that it infallibly records people doing the wrong thing, infallibly records the lies that people told, etc. It does ''not'' mean that every word is literally true and that literary devices such as metaphor and parable are not used.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:49, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Clarity in language is important. If something is claimed to be infallible, it best be awfully clear in its language. Go up to someone who has just learned how to speak English and tell them it's raining cats and dogs, see what kind of reaction you get. Further, in biblical times a rain of cats and dogs doesn't seem that implausible (see: Plague of Frogs).

:::Literal truth of the bible means just that. Literal, not metaphorical. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:52, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::That something claimed to be infallible should be clear is your opinion, not a requirement of infallibility.
:::::We are talking about infallibility, not literalism. Despite NousEpirrhytos' comment below, they are two distinct concepts. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Myk, I think we're arguing logic with the wrong person. BTW, Phil, generally speaking infallible, inerrant and literal are used interchangeably when used by fundamentalists and evangelicals.
::::Another BTW, Phil, do you claim to speak for all Christians? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 18:45, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::I disagree that "infallible" and "inerrant" are ''generally'' used interchangeably with "literal" when used by fundamentalists and evangelicals. Perhaps some uninformed Christians use them interchangeably, but they are clearly different things. I see bibliosceptics conflating them more than I see Christians conflating them. ("Infallible" and "inerrant" may be used interchangeably, as they are very close if not identical in meaning.)
:::::Of course I don't claim to speak for all Christians. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::You are of course free to your own opinion. Unfortunately as I have seen (in print) and heard Biblethumpers using the words interchangeably, I really can't agree with you.
::::But, y'know what cracks me up, your use of "bibliosceptics", a neologism that does not mean what you think it does (look up "bibliophile" and ye shall find understanding). In any case, you seem to think that treating the bible just like one would treat any other book is a bad thing -- in reality, in casting a critical eye on books one can gain much wisdom. Alas, I suppose you're content to settle for a belief in salvation, staying far away from the tree of knowledge (after all, you might find that some things you thought to be good are evil, and those you thought to be evil, good). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 18:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== What's this article trying to achieve? ==

Actually, I think the answer to that question, as far as the original editor is concerned, is obvious. It's to discredit the Bible as the infallible Word of God. My reason for having it (as I added to it) is to demonstrate that the alleged contradictions are not in fact contradictions.

But...

Is it the intention to list every "contradiction" ever ''claimed''? Because if it is, there is no way to achieve that without making the page ridiculously large. Perhaps it is to just show a few samples? But so far there's been no discussion about what sorts of alleged contradictions should be included.

And frankly, many of the allegations are plain silly. In fact I quoted someone saying that about one of the alleged contradictions, and Petrus [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Alleged_Bible_contradictions&diff=72033&oldid=72032 removed] the comment. Fair enough, it was supposed to be an answer to the allegation, not a commentary on the allegation, so I didn't restore it. But it needs to be said somewhere. Let's look at this one a bit closer, because it epitomises the problems with the list.

Two sayings (aka proverbs) that most would be familiar with are:
* Many hands make light work.
* Too many cooks spoil the broth.
Are these two sayings contradictory? Taken literally, then yes they are. But does anyone object to them on those grounds? Of course not. Despite them probably being coined by different people at different times, the validity of both is accepted, because neither claims to be always true and both have their place. Sometimes, more helpers ease the burden on others, but at other times too many people result in them getting in each other's way.

So what are we to make of a proverb in the Bible that says, 'Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes."? Is this seriously a contradiction, or like the saying above, are both sentences true in some cases?

To claim that they are contradictory, one must:
* Ignore the fact that they are ''sayings'', not truth-claims that have no exceptions, and read the text literally. Bibliosceptics love to criticise Creationists and fundamentalists for reading the Bible literally, despite them repeatedly saying that they only do this where it was ''meant'' literally, whilst still recognising metaphors, parables, etc. Yet here we have a bibliosceptic reading the text literally in order to make a claim of a contradiction.
* Presume that the original author was so incompetent that he would write two consecutive sentences contradicting each other, apparently without realising it.
* Further presume that many others who included the book of Proverbs in the canon, or who copied it over and over, or who write commentaries on it, are also so incompetent that they never noticed the "contradiction".
* Reject these sorts of explanations and maintain that it ''is'' a contradiction, with the astounding observation that the text doesn't say "this", meaning the answer given. Well the sayings above don't say that they are both true in different circumstances either, but that is something people are simply expected to understand.

Then we have the case of the number of stables that Solomon had. Christians who believe that the Bible is infallible do not believe that all human translations and copies are infallible, but that the original autographs were (although they do believe that the copies are very accurate copies). So if they ''occasionally'' answer that an apparent contradiction is a copyist error (as in the case of the number of stables), it does ''not'' follow that the Bible is therefore not infallible, except in the mind of the bibliosceptic who is doing his best to find all the contradictions he can, perhaps to bolster his own faith. Keep in mind that the answer to that "contradiction" included a link (and remember that Petrus doesn't want to include links) that explained all that. Neither does he want the sort of long explanations that including all that in the article would entail.

I'm not saying that all claimed contradictions are silly. Some claims of contradictions are fair enough, in that they really do ''appear'' to be contradictions, and deserve to be answered. The number of stables one is an example, but the article should state the apparent contradiction, provide the answer, and leave it at that.

In summary, many claimed contradictions in the Bible are nothing more than bibliosceptics grasping at straws and applying criteria that they wouldn't apply in any other situation, in order to try and prove their viewpoint that the Bible is fallible. I don't believe that this article should waste its time on those sorts of "contradictions".

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Hmmm....shall I take the time to point out all of the fallacies of the above? Part of me would like to write a long refutation, but the wiser part knows this to be fruitless. So, I'll just give one example:
:<nowiki>*</nowiki> Many hands make light work. <nowiki>*</nowiki> Too many cooks spoil the broth. You're assuming that the statements are equal but there is a quantitative difference: yes, many hands may make the work easier but at a certain point, the people begin tripping over each other and thus, as they actually impede the work, there is a point, the ''ne plus ultra'', that tips the balance from a comfy many to a disastrous too many. No contradiction. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 05:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Thank you for supporting my point! To quote Petrus' counter-objection to the very "contradiction" I was discussing here, "'''But the text does not actually say this.'''"
:: I figured it would probably be fruitless to convince you blokes too, but I tried anyway.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::While we're on the topic:
::::"He who hesitates is lost" / "Look before you leap"
::::"Cut your losses and let your profits run" / "Buy low, sell high."
::::"Absence makes the heart grow fonder" / "Out of sight, out of mind"
::::"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again." / "Don't beat a dead horse."
:::::19:45, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Excellent examples! - in fact there are few well-known proverbs that don't also have their opposites. But then that makes the point perfectly. No given 'pair' is likely to have been produced by the same person. Their very oppositeness suggests different hands with different views, ''not a single, monolithic author''.

And no, my purpose wasn't 'to discredit the Bible as the infallible Word of God' - merely to provoke people actually to look at the words (in some cases, apparently for the first time!) and decide for themselves whether that proposition is really tenable in the light of the facts. Thus, 'to discredit ''the dogma'' that the Bible is the infallible Word of God', possibly. But about the Bible I'm perfectly neutral. It's indubitably there, and it indubitably says what it says. I merely urge that people read it through clear glass, not stained glass. It's better for the eyes, you know!--[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:45, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:Yet you appear to be reading it through the eyes of a hyper-literalist, rather than as it was meant to be understood. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

How do you know how it is "meant" to be understood? How do you know, for instance, that Genesis 1 was meant to be understood literally? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 18:54, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

...other than by reading it through stained glass? Why can't the text simply be allowed to say what it says, warts and all, without imposing your own dogmas and preconceptions on it - such as the man-made myth of God-given infallibility? Isn't this perilously close to ''biblolatry'', in direct infringement of the spirit of the second commandment? Do you honestly think the Bible needs ''your'' protection from the light of reality, let alone that of all the commentators whom Conservative seems intent on importing into the argument? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:53, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:As noted above, it is best to read the bible in a literary manner, that is to say, the same way you'd read any other book. I've always been amused by folks who dismiss Odysseus tricking the cyclops to save his men as far-fetched mythology and yet cling to the almost parallel David v Goliath story. Both stories are allegorical myths, not litteral renderings of "history". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::You determine how something is meant to be understood by the language used (e.g., does it conform to the style of poetry, narrative, etc.?), and by the culture for whom it was written. If, for example, a sentence said "The rock landed on the marquee", would you understand it to mean that the rock landed on a large tent, or on a canopy projecting out over the entrance to a large building? The correct answer depends on whether the writer was writing for an Australian or British audience, or an American audience. You can also look at how others who would know how to read it understood it, if such records exist. For example, Jesus referred to various aspects of the Genesis narrative as though it was historical fact; He didn't understand it as allegorical myth. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:48, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Precisely. The Genesis narrative was written for (and by) a people living nearly three thousand years ago, and Jesus lived two thousand years ago. That cultural difference is the whole explanation of why the narrative doesn't say, 'The Earth was formed as a result of the agglomeration of cosmic dust some 4,500 million years ago', and why Jesus didn't understand it that way: none of the concepts involved was understood at the time. (Just as well that, as a healer, he had never heard of the symptomatology of schizophrenia!) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Jesus was the Creator, so he would know, and He endorsed what Genesis said. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Well, technically, the only thing we know is that second-hand accounts claimed that Jesus endorsed what Genesis said. We ain't got nothin' from Jesus himself. Jesus didn't write anything. --[[User:ReaganLives|ReaganLives]] 08:46, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::If you want to get technical about it, the ultimate author of the Bible was God, Jesus is God, ergo Jesus is the author of the Bible, so we do have it from Jesus Himself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:Or so it's reported in the Gospels.
:Also, if you read the bible in the cultural context, something that is part of any literary reading or scholarship, you'd understand why, for example, the creation stories are written as they are. They are attempts to explain the then unknowable "whence came we?", but from different perspectives, separated in time by about 160 years. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 09:11, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::I agree that it should be understood in its cultural context; that's effectively one of the things I've been saying. But I disagree that the cultural context is that of trying to explain the unknowable. If the Bible is correct, the "unknowable" was revealed by God, thus known. I don't understand the reference to 160 years. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:20, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Then, I would suggest you indulge your curiosity in some real Bible scholarship, rather than reading only those interpretations meant to make members of the evangelical community feel more secure in their ''argumenta ad ignoratium''. I can suggest two well-respected books, based on true interdisciplinary scholarship, if you wish.
:::BTW, what's with the edit summary "Jesus knew"? -- how would you (or anyone else for that matter) know what Jesus "knew". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 16:20, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the condescending remarks. As the Creator, Jesus obviously knew how creation occurred. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:43, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Unless, of course, he wasn't and didn't. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:14, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Vero, Petre. Interesting that Philip states religious dogma as fact. Note, Philip, that I did not use the theological title "Christ" (i.e., Jesus as God), but rather used his human name, thus referring to Jesus as a man. Thus, having clarified my question, I shall ask again: how would you (or anyone else for that matter) know what Jesus "knew". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:10, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: I was stating it in a matter-of-fact way because I was answering the question of how Jesus would know. That's how He would know, and in that context it was proper to put it in that way.
:::: I fail to grasp the distinction that you are making between Jesus as God and Jesus as man, therefore my answer stands. Are you suggesting that the man Jesus was totally oblivious to what He had done as God?
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::''Who said'' Jesus is God? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:58, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::The Bible does. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:39, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::But the Koran doesn't - and the Koran is the Word of God. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 10:54, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::So? You asked who does say it, and the Bible does say it, so the Koran ''not'' saying it doesn't change that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:37, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Further proof of the need to read. I'm talking about assuming Jesus to be just a man, not a god. Try to consider that possibility...it will not harm your faith and you might even learn something in the process. Also, why not try (if you haven't, already) reading the bible without relying on exegesis or the opinions of others, there again you might learn something.
:::Obviously, I have no ken of precisely what you know or think, but it seems, based on what you've written here, that your knowledge is limited to monolithic dogma and that you might think that those of us who see the bible as a book are bereft of biblical knowledge (in the true sense, not some cosmic exegetical sense). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 10:50, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Hey, if you want to get hypothetical and propose that Jesus was not God at all, then sure, he would not have known. But why not also hypothesise that Jesus didn't exist, or that the Bible was written by Shakespeare or something? The point is that I was answering a question about how I would know how Genesis was intended to be understood, and part of my answer was to rely on what Jesus understood it to mean. By "Jesus", I mean the bloke in the New Testament who was actually God and who was actually the Creator. That's what '''I''' meant by "Jesus". The response was to ask how Jesus would know if he ''wasn't'' God. Well sure, if He wasn't God, he wouldn't know, but I was answering the question according to my understanding of who Jesus was. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:49, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::On the basis of what evidence? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:55, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::The Bible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:39, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, this discussion has gone as far as it can. The illogic displayed by Philip is a clear indication that he is not willing to learn anything, and that his lithocephalic attachment to what he "believes" will neither allow him to learn nor to debate in a rational manner. Sad, really. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:59, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::So now you accuse me of being illogical without showing that I have been illogical. Nice. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:47, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::'The Bible' (a whole library of different books, most of which don't even mention Jesus at all) is not evidence, any more than 'the police department's computer' is evidence that Joe Bloggs burgled your house. Cite the precise evidence that Jesus is God, or stop making such absurd claims as that he was the Creator (which even most traditional Christians don't believe) - ideas which, as a faithful Jew, he cannot possibly have supported himself. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:51, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::I can't see the analogy between the Bible and the police computer, but why can't the police computer contain the evidence of a burglary?
::::::Are you unaware of the verses in the Bible that say that Jesus was the Creator? I can quote them if you want, but I suspect that you already know them and reject them for some reason.
::::::Why couldn't Jesus have supported that idea?
::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:49, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Additional topic for study for Phillip: Judaism. 12:53, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Petrus' comment of 05:51, 8 April 2007 (EDT) shows but one example of Philip's illogic. Another example would be this sentence, "But why not also hypothesise that Jesus didn't exist, or that the Bible was written by Shakespeare or something?" This is an absurd extrapolation that has no basis in what I said, and as such is an illogical response. Also Philip, while I'm sure you're unaware of this, you should know that for nearly two millenia there have been raging debates within the Chistian community regarding to what extent and where Jesus can use his "supernaural" powers. For example -- for the crucifxion to be a valid sacrifice leading to salvation, Jesus must be all man during that period. Also, early Christianity were beset with a variety of "heresies" (litteraly "schools of thought) that, had they been adopted, would have profoundly changed your current beliefs. See ''Donatism, Manichaeism, Gnosticism, Marcionism, Montanism'' and ''Docetism''. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 07:18, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::It is a rather large extrapolation, to make a point, but it's only an extrapolation, not an example of bad logic. Even if you are correct about Jesus needing to be all man (and I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing), how does that affect what I said? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:49, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I can't think of any convincing evidence from the Bible that Jesus thought he was God, let alone the Creator - so perhaps you'd better enlighten us? Simple references will do. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 10:54, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::I hope you mean that you can't think of any references, rather than you can't think of any "convincing evidence", else I'm probably wasting my time. But here are two (both are talking about Jesus):
{{QuoteBox|In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. (John 1:1-3, NIV)}}
{{QuoteBox|For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. (Colossians 1:16, NIV)}}

== Protected debate page? ==

Whats the deal with the protected debate page? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:57, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:Conservative apparently went on a "Clean up unsourced statements" trip (blocked Hoji in the process for re-inserting things - who then unblocked himself because he's so awesome), not realizing that this is not in the Main space anymore. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:02, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::I then went to delete some other unsourced stuff. But, CPAdmin1 reverted it, and I have asked him why, because this is ridiculous to the Nth degree. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:05, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== This "namespace" is a joke. It claimed people to be scholars who weren't ==

Hoji wrote to me regarding [[Conservapedia:Alleged Bible contradictions]] the following: " It is a Conservapedia: namespace, is NOT AN ARTICLE, and does NOT need citations."

I can't think of anything more detrimental to Conservapedia than to be filled with "Namespaces" (whatever those are) because people can say just about any foolish thing without backing it up.

The "contradiction" page is a monstrosity claiming people to be "critical scholars" who have no real credentials ('''Unix systems engineer'''), etc.

What's with this whole "namespace" idea?

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:13, 5 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

: The namespace means its not a real article and lets people bicker back and foreth without the threat of getting banned. Citations are not needed (unless you presume to go clean up the other Conservapedia namespace articles that lack citations). What are your credentials anyways? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Especially where the introductory remarks merely refer to what ''generally'' happens - on ''both'' sides of the argument! One almost gets the impression that ''somebody'' is afraid to have both sides stated! Such paranoia is both unworthy and unnecessary. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:58, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: *sigh* Ask first, act then. It's not quantum physics. "Namespace" = a sort of container, filled with articles. All regular articles are in the "Main" namespace (for example, [[Theory of evolution]] is in the main namespace). Article Talk pages (like [[Talk:Theory of evolution]]) are in the "Talk" namespace. Same goes for pages in the "Help" namespace (all articles starting with "Help:...") or the "Conservapedia" namespace (like this "article").
:Articles in the "Conservapedia" namespace are NOT regular articles. All debates are in it, along with a few special pages about Conservapedia itself. This "article" was moved from the "Main" namespace to the "Conservapedia" namespace - most likely BECAUSE it's not a normal article and more of a debate.
:As you may have noticed, debates fall a bit out of the normal rules - not everything must be sourced (althouth it helps). Original research and argumentation is naturally a part of a debate, so it's completely counter-intuitive to suddenly "clean up" things - you're destroying a debate archive. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:24, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::This is a prime example of why, instead of reverting blindly without even understanding the Wiki model, you should consult other editors. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:32, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==unwinable battle==
Glad to see that section removed, as it was essentially a big "so what?" Crowing that "noted evangelical scholars" (a bit of an oxymoron) signed such and such petition supporting Bible inerrancy is as valueless as a petition signed by baseball player saying they support baseball. @@ [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:22, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

=="Contradictions need to be proved"==
Looks like a long paragraph of someone's personal opinion. Is there a source somewhere that defines what a "Biblical contradiction" is? A generally accepted rulebook that says whom the "onus" is upon and so forth? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:A biblical contradiction is the same as any other contradictions, and contradictions are generally the responsibility of the speaker/writer or his/her representatives to clear up. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 16:38, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== I do not understand this argument. ==

Could someone please explain to me how anyone in their right mind could think this is a sensible argument to have? The collection of works called the bible was written over thousands of years by a load of different guys in various languages, with different agendas, different points of view, and using their limited understanding of the world as it was at the time they wrote it. Following this, bits were lost, added to, lost again, and then transcribed, translated, re-transcribed, re-translated etc. by a whole load of different guys all struggling to make sense out of a fragmented text in a different language, sno longer spoken. How on earth would anyone expect that there would not be inaccuracies and contradictions arising from that process?

... and if you claim that 'God guided the hand of the writers, translators etc...", think again.
Why on earth (or in heaven) would he bother? Wouldn't it have been much simpler to write the thing once and set it in stone for all time, and ensure that his word was preserved intact? If God actually wanted that, then that was what he would have done. Come on guys, think about it... even if you are a believer, the real point about having a bible is that it does contain inaccuracies. No believer can be 100% sure that God has not deliberately inserted inaccuracies, simply so that mankind is forced into a debate about 'higher' matters, such as his existence, what the passages actually mean, and the moral and ethical debates ensuing; non-believers of couse just say that that it's just a disparate load of stories & prejudices, to be taken with a pinch of salt.

What you cannot claim, by any sensible and logical reading of the situation, is that it is bible infallible. How on earth could it be, or more importantly, why would it be?

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 12:53, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:A very brief answer: In your first paragraph, you are drawing conclusions on the basis of premises that are not accepted by Christians who believe the Bible in inerrant, and you have not shown those premises to be true. In your second paragraph, you are claiming to know what God would think is the best thing to do, and what you consider reasonable. Perhaps He sees it differently to you. The first sentence of your third paragraph amounts to an assertion with no substance. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 13:22, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::(i) You mean that people do not believe that the bible was written over thousands of years by different authors? Where did it come from then?
:: (ii) If I cannot know the mind of God, then how can anyone? In which case how do ''you'' know what I claim about the mind of God isn't true? Surely by claiming that the bible (which you take to be the word of God) is true, ''you'' are claiming to know the mind of God, and are therefore guilty of what I stand accused.
:: (iii) I am not asserting anything in the last sentence; I am denying an assertion made by others on the basis of a logical argument carried out in the two paragraphs above.

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:42, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::# No, I agree it was written over about 2000 years by a number of different authors. But you made a lot more claims that just that.
::::# I'm not saying that nobody can know anything about the mind of God, but to claim to know the ''best'' way for God to have done something presumes that you know all the possible implications of doing it in different ways. It's like a surveyor mapping the best route for a new railway, then you come along and say that it would have been better to go a different way, not realising that the surveyor knew more about the situation than you, and the way you propose has some unstable ground along the route, or some other problem that you hadn't been aware of.
::::# You are asserting that others cannot claim the Bible to be infallible.
::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Philip, look, I'm sure you think I'm being snarky when I say this, but you really need to educate yourself. Cat's slightly off with his/her dating, but not drastically off. The Pentateuch was written over a 160-200 year span beginning about 720 BCE, with the prophetic material being written as late as 100 BCE. The NT was written between the 5th decade of the first century CE up to (possibly) as late as 120 CE, with editing going on into the 3rd century.
:::The relevancy of whether the premises are supported by bible inerrantists escapes me. History is replete with the dogmatic detritus of the denials of reality by various relious sects.
:::Cat's point re the second paragraph is correct -- you base your denial on a circular argument that only true believers of your ilk can "know the mind of god" and the rest of us are bereft of any comprehension. This is an untenable and preposterous argument, a tautology of the first magnitude.
:::What, precisely, is Cat asserting in the third paragraph? Nothing that I can see (other than, perhaps, a disagreement with previous assertions). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:40, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Some people believe that the Pentateuch was written from around 720 B.C. onwards (I know that already, it's not a lack of education on my part), but other people believe differently. If you were unaware of that, perhaps ''you'' need to educate yourself.
::::: I'm sorry that the relevance escapes you, but what you are doing is simply denigrating people who hold a different view by claiming, without evidence, that they are denying reality. How about proving your case (if you can) instead of just throwing insults?
::::: My argument was not tautologous, but perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying and hopefully my reply to CatWatcher has clarified matters.
::::: See my reply to CatWatcher for what she was asserting.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: In paragraph 3 I am contending that no-one could possibly claim that the bible is infallible, either pragmatically or theologically. Pragmatically it is a distillation of different sources which cannot in principle be expected to agree; theologically it must either be fallible or open to doubt. If it is neither, then it is both valid and indisputable. This means that God has provided us with a document which proves his existence; hence faith is not required, as we have his telephone number & address. The fact that he requires us to have faith, means that the bible, in principle must therefore either be fallible or questionable. QED.
--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 18:11, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Works for me. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 19:50, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I'm not sure that I totally follow your reasoning there, but the problem is with your definition of faith, which, biblically, is trust, based on evidence. You seem to be assuming that faith is belief held without evidence. See [http://tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html here] for a better explanation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:17, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, Philip, you've proven one of my suspicions -- you ''do'' rely on the exegesis and opinions of other insofar as they suppoort your belief system. Now, try to find, for example, a discussion of faith that is ''not'' from an apologetics site. Faith is very much the belief in things for which there is no logical basis, no physical proof, no evidence (except in the mind of a believer -- the tautology of faith). Why are you seemingly so afraid to go outside the safe realm of apologetics and look into other opnions? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 07:30, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: [[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]]:
::::: 1) Many people do, in fact claim that the Bible is infallible theologically.
::::: 2) A lesser but significant number do claim that the Bible is infallible pragmatically.
::::: 3) "If it happens, it's possible."
::::: 4) Ergo, you must be wrong when you say "no-one could possibly claim" these things.
::::: Take a look at TerryH's comments in the opening paragraphs of [[Conservapedia:Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?]] for an example of someone who takes Biblical accuracy pretty seriously. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:35, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Definition of evolution

2007-04-08T11:36:00Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* that Earth is insignificant? */

Highly informative expansion of my stub. Never know that about the "nothing makes sense" quote, which I gather gets taken out of context a lot.--[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:45, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Some may say that we should settle on the correct definition, and stick with that. But I think that it is clear that several definitions are in common use. I would also like definitions that pro-evolution folks are happy with. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:10, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

There is a lot of potential here. The lefty thing is a bit annoying, perhaps because it hit too close to home...that being said and disclosed, it is not actually a common scientific interpretation as stated. If you were to add a pure atheist view of evolution, you might say something like,

:''Evolution completely explains life on Earth, with no need for recourse to supernatural causes. Evolution is amoral."
[[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 15:08, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, the last definition is really philosophy and not science. I would exclude it, except that it really comes into debates about evolution. I just added a couple of references that say that unplanned, unguided, and random are part of evolution. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:18, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks for adding the bit about [[unguided evolution]]. My attempts to wedge that into Wikipedia is what got JoshuaZ and company to have me put on probation. (Bitter, and proud!) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:38, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

== that Earth is insignificant? ==

Materially insignificant, possibly - there are billions of other stars and planets. However you will find a wide range of opinion within the scientific community on the question of "life other places" or even "intelligent life other places". To this extent Earth is very significant, it is the only planet in the universe where life is known to exist. I don't think you will find anyone in the group of 'leftist-atheist' who will claim that in terms of life, the earth is insignificant. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:39, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

The most materialist of scientists would likely argue that while the Earth may or may not be unique, it is certainly significant, being the place where we evolved and live. See the "anthropic principle".[[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 15:52, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

: I am under the impression that it is primarily leftists and atheists who argue that life on Earth is insignificant because of life on other planets, billions of stars, Darwinian processes, etc. I don't have any references handy. I am throwing it out here for discussion. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:13, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Alas, such nonsense. The page contains not-so-much a valid definition as a whining screed again evolution written by folks who know nothing of evolution. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 07:36, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Is the Bible Inerrant?

2007-04-08T11:30:33Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* I do not understand this argument. */ mense deserta simul mens non habere est

Conservapedia talk:Is the Bible Inerrant?

2007-04-08T11:20:54Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* I do not understand this argument. */ restore chronological order

Conservapedia talk:Is the Bible Inerrant?

2007-04-08T11:18:31Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* What's this article trying to achieve? */

Conservapedia talk:Is the Bible Inerrant?

2007-04-07T23:50:24Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* I do not understand this argument. */

Conservapedia talk:Is the Bible Inerrant?

2007-04-07T21:59:34Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* What's this article trying to achieve? */ terminatio disputationis in nomine mentis sanae.

Conservapedia talk:Is the Bible Inerrant?

2007-04-07T21:40:13Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* I do not understand this argument. */ in verite libertas

Conservapedia talk:Is the Bible Inerrant?

2007-04-07T14:50:44Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* What's this article trying to achieve? */

Debate:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?

2007-04-07T13:23:53Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* White-hole Cosmology */

{{debate}}

==Theory 1==

Well, I would venture to say that we have not seen the far off ones yet. We can only see the light that has reached the Earth so far. This means that the currently-visible stars are "only" several thousand lightyears away. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 17:16, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: Empircally false. Basic parallax data gets us that there are stars at least 7000 years away and more sophisticated techniques force other stars to be even farther away. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:59, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: What's more of that were true then why have ancient civilisations recorded lots of the stars that were now see? shouldn't there be masses of new ones that the light of which has reached us in the proceeding years? [[User:Ampasand|Ampasand]] 11:23 29 march 2007 (GMT+12)

Perhaps, the Universe really is billions of years old. Perhaps the Genisis account is merely refering to the creation etc. from the perspective of the Earth. Perhaps God is, say, eternal. Couldn't matter and the elements be eternal too? {{Unsigned|Brigham's Homeboy}}

:That's very close to the white-hole cosmology of Russell Humphreys (see below). According to it, the ''fringes'' of the universe are billions of years old, but the ''near-center'' of the universe--where we are--is much younger. In short, time did not flow uniformly throughout the universe--and until relatively recently, in our region, time did not flow at all.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:54, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==Theory 2==
When God created the universe, he also created a complete ray of light extending between the star and the Earth. The light that we see ''now'' was created only a few thousand years ago. It looks as if it came from the star, but it really didn't; it was created in mid-air, or mid-space as it were, a few thousand light-years away. The light that started travelling from the star itself at its instant of creation will not reach us for millions of years (or perhaps never if the Earth does not last that long).

<
* = star
- = ray of light
O = Earth
> = where the light we see today was when the Universe was created

BEFORE CREATION:
[Void]
AFTER CREATION of star, Earth, ''and'' complete ray of light all at the same instant
*------------------------------------------------->----O

A few thousand years after Creation (today)
*----------------------------------------------------->O

As opposed to:
AFTER CREATION:
* O

Millions of years later (still can't see star)
*--------------------- O

Millions and millions of years later (still can't see star)
*--------------------------------------------- O

Millions and millions and millions of years later (finally can see star)
*------------------------------------------------------O

The language of the Bible, "Let there be light," even can be read as supporting this.

This theory is absolutely ridiculous. The stars we see in the sky are millions of light years away, and we can see them because the earth has existed for far longer than a few thousand years. Astronomers can tell roughly how old a star is, and they know that the ones you see at night are older than a few thousand years.

No, I do not believe this. (But I can't prove it's not true.) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:27, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Dpbsmith: This is the essence of why this is religion not science, it can't be proven/disproven... [[User:Jesput|Jespur]]

: Jesput, the same is true for science. Science cannot prove anything at all. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: This is a variant of omphalism and essentially asserts that God has deliberately deceived humans. I don't think most people would want to believe in a deceptive deity and in any event, it would contradict the verse in Isaiah that says that God is truth. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:01, 10 March 2007 (EST)

If God is trying to fake us out, He certainly did His best to make it a CONVINCING fake. Just check out those scientists who've been fooled into thinking an entire galaxy was ripped in two several billion years ago. <ref> [http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070302_galaxy_rip.html Galaxy Ripped to Shreds]</ref>{{Unsigned|Fullmetajacket}}

: I'm sorry, this is a nice theory, but JoshuaZ is right, it's a type of omphalism, and assumes that God deliberately tricked us. At some point, [[Occam's Razor]] has to kick in here. But wow, this light argument sure does rip YEC to shreds.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::The theory does not insinuate that God is deceptive. In Genesis, he talks to Abraham about his descendants and how they will be as numerous as the stars in the sky. What if God made the stars like that, not to deceive humans in any way, but to use them for His own purpose, such as using them as a metaphor? (By the way, how is making rays of light any form of deception? How are we being "tricked" by this creation?) --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Rays of light carry information; they're records of past events. If light was really created in transit, then we've witnessed the death of stars which never actually existed in the first place. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Descartes approached a similar problem in his meditations. The way out of it was to say that since God is good, God would not do something to intentionally deceive our senses and thus we can trust them. I believe that it is valid to continue that to say that it is reasonable to trust our extended senses that this planet is a several billion years old. Otherwise (as Descartes would say), God is a deceiver and then would not be the most perfect being that can be imagined. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Fraid that's the logical conclusion. Then again, [[theory of evolution|a lot of things on this site]] are quite disconnected from logic.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 10:08, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Theory 3 ==

C is not actually constant. All measurements on Earth indicate that it is, but beyond our Solar System it could easily be faster, slower, moving through wormholes to appear faster, etc. Hubble's Law says that the farther away a galaxy is, the faster it moves away due to universal expansion, so why couldn't light be similarly expanded with distance? So many of our assumptions about the universe rely on our belief that things happen the same way everywhere - a huge leap of faith for a scientist. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 13:05, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:I don't know whether you knew, but the official definition of the [[meter]] now assumes that C is constant. The meter is defined in terms of C! Someone needs to set up some periodic re-measurements of the orange-red line from the spectrum of [[krypton]]-86 that provided the most recent definition of the meter: 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of this radiation. If that number starts to rise, then we know that C is slowing, as [[Barry Setterfield]] has stated.

:I have another variation on this theory, however: what if C were originally much faster, is now the speed at which we now find it, and is not going to change anymore? Except that I have an [[Occam's razor]] problem with that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:I don't dispute at all that the meter is based upon C, but it hardly matters whether it is or not. Either C is constant or it isn't, no matter what units you use. Rather than C slowing since time began, I was thinking more the velocity of C being a function of its distance away from us. Also, your theory satisfies Occam's razor equally well or better than the Big Bang does, so I see no problem with it logically. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 03:28, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

This hypothosis sounds awkwardly non-falsifyable. It is proposed that light used to travel faster than it does today, but conveniently stoped slowing down before measurement became possible. How can it be determined either way? Also, this would not be a slight slowdown... its going to require light travel a lot faster. The most distant objects known are ten billion light-years away<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1432321.stm</ref>. So, even assuming light slowed from its super-speed to todays speed in a single instant as soon as civilisation emerged, thats going to require it used to travel about 1.67 million times as fast as today to achieve the 6000-year target figure. Im not a physicist, but I dont think thats even remotely possible. A little variation, perhaps, but a factor that huge... it would require adjusting too many other figures to keep the formulae valid. Permiativity of free space, planks constant, a lot of very fundamental things. -- Suricou

:The basic problem with any variable-c model is that the entire observational record is exactly consistent with constant c. So we're left with two types of model; the one Terry mentions, where c changed in an unobservable way in the distant past, and the one Daniel mentions, where c is different in other parts of the Universe, but these differences manage to leave every observation we make exactly as we would expect if no such change had happened. That essentially leaves us with two different ways of saying "sure, the Universe ''looks'' old, but because of an unobservable, untestable effect, it really isn't." Which may be ''true'', but it'll never be good science. May as well propose that we all live in the Matrix and be done with it. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:30, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, theory is out - of course, should have realised earlier. If C is altered, the knock-on effect ould include a shift in emmission spectrum. That would be very easily observed in distant stars. As it isn't observed, that means C must be constantish. Perhaps just a little variation, but not a 1.67-million-times factor. I think that just about kills the 'C is faster elsewhere' idea. - Suricou

== White-hole Cosmology ==
The universe began as a white hole. Initially, as matter expanded into it, time did not flow--because the very space-time continuum had four dimensions of space and none of time. Eventually, time began to flow at the outer fringes of the expanding ball of matter, and this region of timeliness worked its way back to the center. So the earth really is six thousand or so years old--by clocks on the earth, which are the only clocks that need to matter to us. By any clock on the outer fringes, the cosmos might well be twenty billion years old. The light impinges on us now because it was always impinging on the border of the region of timelessness until that region shrank away to nothing.<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/White_hole_cosmology White hole cosmology] by [[CreationWiki]]</ref>--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:15, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Not bad, what about the four-day simultaneous harmonic Time Cube?<ref>[http://timecube.com/ Time Cube] by Doctor Gene Ray</ref> {{Unsigned|Fullmetajacket}}

:Cute. Very cute. And incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:36, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:Falsified by the distinct absence of massive blueshifting of distant light sources. I highly doubt anybody's even attempted to formalize this as a solution to Einstein's field equations, either, which would be a prerequisite for it to be considered a coherent proposition at all. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:25, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I dug out a few of Humphrey's papers defending this model and reached two basic conclusions. One, as I suspected, there ''is'' no model, merely handwaving. Two, he doesn't actually understand GR. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:39, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That's obvious, given the idiocy of the theory. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 09:23, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

== Silliness ==
Physics has had for many years more-than-adequate explanations. All of these verbal acrobatics into non-falsifiable theories to try to get around physical fact are humorus. Wouldn't it be easier for those who deny physics to just say "I accept physics, and God is mysterious and powerful enough to make it happen."?
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Proverbs 25:2

It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 22:58, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Wise words [[User:Cracker|Cracker]], wise words indeed. --[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 19:33, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

Talk:Bible

2007-04-07T12:30:11Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* Name */

{{protect|MountainDew}}

== Either un-protect or fix the Name section ==
This is a disgrace. Whoever has protected this article, fix the Name section immediately.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 01:08, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:name section fixed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:04, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

That's odd. I don't remember seeing that when I protected the article. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==Article is too brief!==
This is '''The Bible!''' Don't you think the Word of God deserves a greater article, one with more detail on the subject and its history? I think so! In fact, I think I will start out by doing just that, and here's the proposed layout:

*Intro
*Brief listing of the books within, divided of course into Old/New Testaments.
*History of the Bible...as in '''who wrote it'''.
*Why the world accepts/rejects it.
*Current status
*Include pics and charts and links.

What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:28, 11 March 2007 (EST)

== Why describe it when we can transcribe it? ==

Sounds good to me. But why not PUT the whole Bible on here? It gets quoted often enough.

:Well, the Bible is rather large. I think that the Bible as a whole work can be treated the right way here, with possibly separate articles covering each book, where greater detail is needed.

:I also uploaded a lead-in photograph, but am having trouble with it for the article. Can you help? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:43, 11 March 2007 (EST)

The links I mentioned can be two-fold: a link to online Bible sites where complete versions have been transcribed and posted; and links to Bible software which can be downloaded and run off computers. I happen to have E-Sword, which is very good [www.e-sword.net]. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:46, 11 March 2007 (EST)

==What happened so far==
I took the layout to the next step, which is subsections on both Testaments. The Old Testament has been written with emphasis on its Hebrew origins (Torah, Tanakh, etc), which I feel is a good description anyway, and does not detract from the Christian Bible with the exception of the actual arrangement of the books. I would like to see the Hebrew titles of these books in its own written language, but that may take a bit of editing the actual structure of Conservapedia to accept it.

The Apocrypha, if necessary, can have it's own subheading, but ''after'' the others as listed.

The History subsection can be written as either a history of the whole Bible, or divided into separate periods, as in history of the Torah; the Septuagint; the early Gospels, etc.

Since this is an article about the Bible, it should be restricted specifically to the Bible as a whole and its history. Other topics related to it, such as persecutions of Bible believers, divine creation as in Genesis, individual books, etc, should have their own articles. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==Is Conservapedia just a redacted Wikipedia?==

Somewhere around 80% of this article is a straight reproduction of the Wikipedia Bible article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible] with many of the less conservative points omitted. It seems that either a citation or a rewrite is in order. --[[User:Timothyo|Timothyo]] 21:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Rewrite, definately...what is there should suffice as a structure guide temporarily. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Two things that bug me about this. First and foremost, Wikipedia has a rule on it which states articles there fall under the GPFL thing, and they state specifically that all articles are free from copyright, to use, edit, misuse, whatever. So, if any content here is from Wikipedia, one can say "oh well" and leave it at that.

:Not quite... see my remarks below. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

But that led to some thinking here, and I wanted to see if the original writer(s) of this article had violated copyrights when they posted the material for the first time. I have here at home a book titled "Unger's Bible Dictionary" copyright 1966 by the Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, and the article within titled "Bible" has a number of elements that simply dovetail with the Wikipedia article. Which means there will be a re-write here so that there is no question. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:53, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, list the omitted conservative points you mentioned. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:55, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:The GDFL allows reuse only if the original authors are credited, and the article in which the material is reused is itself released under the GDFL, IIRC. So reuse of Wikipedia content is definitely not allowed here. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::When I posted that very question, it was never answered until now. Tolerate the material in question here for no more than a week, and only then for it's use as a template for something better. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::1) Aschafly has been pretty clear that he, at least, wants Conservapedia articles to be original, and not copies of anything, redacted or not.

:::2) Wikipedia is perfectly happy with the idea of building a "Wikipedia fork," that is a modified copy of Wikipedia. But. There are serious complications with this, due to the GFDL license (which is not easy for anyone to understand, apparently including Wikipedia).

:::3) The big GFDL issue, and the one that I sense Conservapedia will not agree to, is that if you copy and modify a Wikipedia article, you have to make the copy available under GFDL, too. This means a significant loss of control. For example, following the GFDL rules, if Conservapedia took a bunch of Wikipedia articles and rewrote them, and if a liberal cherrypicked the rewritten articles for the funniest examples of ludicrous over-the-top spin... including, of course, vandal edits... and published it in book form as "The Conservapedia Jokebook," I don't think Conservapedia could stop it. (Disclaimer 1: I'm not a lawyer. Disclaimer 2: I don't think ordinary lawyers understand intellectual property law. Disclaimer 3: I'm not so sure intellectual property lawyers understand intellectual property law.).

:::4) Another issue with the GFDL is that anything published under the GFDL must "preserve the history," whatever that means. If someone starts a new article at Wikipedia in 2003, and there are a thousand edits to it, and in 2007 you copy it, rework it, and republish it on Conservapedia, there is supposed to be some way for readers of the Conservapedia article to retrace all those steps if they want to. Nobody seems to be completely sure how to do this, or what does and doesn't really comply with the GFDL, which wasn't really designed to cover anything like Wikipedia. (Somewhere Wikipedia makes a qualified suggestion that ''possibly'' a simple link to the version of the WIkipedia article that served as the jumping-off point ''might'' do). So, Wikipedia encourages re-use, and there are in fact numerous commercial "mirrors" that duplicate Wikipedia content, but Wikipedia does not give any nice clear recipe on exactly how to go about producing a censored or redacted or reworked derivative of Wikipedia. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

It will be as original as possible. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Instead of waiting...==
Did a re-write of the article and removed the content in question. What remains is 1) that which is common to every work about the Bible, whether it's here, or Wikipedia, or Britannica, or many other works; and 2) the references section...Wikipedia most certainly cannot copyright a list of external sources.

But double-check what is there, and let me know what can be changed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Remaining subheadings to add==
Just added "Name" and "References" subheadings. Need to add an over-all history of the Bible, and add a subheading for the various versions in print...possibly with brief histories of each? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Separate articles==
Clicked on [[Genesis]], and got redirected back to the Bible page. Not right. Every book in the Bible should have its own detailed article page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==History of the Bible subheading==
For this, I have a rough layout:
*From the time it was first written down, under Moses, to the last OT book.
*the style of the writing, i.e. by hand and on what.
*Between the Testaments, as in the Septuagint.
*The New Testament
*the early versions of the Bible until the printing press
*Gutenburg and versions up to the KJV
*very brief listing of versions since, including internet impact.
Any other suggestions would be helpful. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:59, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Pictures==
I need two more pics to illustrate this. The first is a pic of a Torah scroll, and what I want to see are people near it with reverence. The second are good copies of New Testament fragments or pages which were hand-written. And of course, they need to be in the public domain, conforming to the rules, etc... [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:50, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==As it stands now==
Although the "History" part of it is not done at this time, the article itself should be written as a straight-up article about the Bible, with none of the allegations, questions, etc. that scholars and historians have made over the years against it. My reasons for it are two:
*Such allegations have been proven wrong time and time again, so why even bother to repeat them here?
*If such allegations need to be written down, then they need a separate article for each where they can be detailed as to points made, reasons why, who postulated them, and all evidence refutting them.
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:14, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Done==
This article is done. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:49, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Very '''very''' nice work there [[User:Karajou|Karajou]]!! Kudos! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 16:09, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::I hate kudos...but peanut M&M's is a nice stand-in! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:30, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Careful! Under 'Name', Greek ''biblos'' did ''not'' mean 'book' . It meant 'papyrus'. You are correct, though, in saying that the ''direct'' source was Greek ''biblia'', 'books' - i.e. the various canonical books of which it was composed. Also, under 'History of the Bible', you would do well to consult the most recent research of on-the-spot archeologists such as Finkelstein and Silberman before being ''too'' sure about the authorship and dating of the earliest books of the Bible! Some caution is also advisable about suggesting that the author of Matthew (whether or not that was his real name -- he doesn't claim that it was) was a direct disciple of Jesus. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== ...sources? ==

Considering how long the article is (I'm certainly impressed!), I find it odd that the entire thing just has five external links inside the article. I'm ''totally'' not going to plaster "fact" tags through the entire thing, but I think that an article with so much information could use a few more sources. Doesn't have to be right now, but more as a general remark. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:32, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, the order is for originality, which is what is here for the most part...but whether incorporated into the text or not, the article could benefit from additional sources. There are extensive links at the bottom of the article for internet info, but what I want are books from at least 50 years or more ago to include in the reference section. The article itself, which is laid out to be just ''about'' the Bible and a brief on its history, should remain the same without any of the controversial stuff others think has to be included...that is a subject for separate articles. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:39, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::Mh, yes, agreed. Tangential topics should get their own articles, possibly with "See also" links at the bottom if they're closely connected to this article. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Oh yes...if there's an article about, say Biblical criticism, then there will be a link here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:59, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The trouble is that, all the while this and other articles are locked, nobody else can insert the relevant links. It's self-defeating! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:13, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==E-Sword pic==
For the record, the image of the E-Sword screenshot is copyrighted, and used here with permission as per the summary. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Authorship of Hebrews?==

Hebrews' author has been disputed for thousands of years - it seems questionable to me to list it as a Pauline epistle without any sort of note that Paul is not its verified author. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 12:02, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

note from stanley d'cunha sdcunha@crescent.ae
i agree with daniel b douglas. the author should have at least parenthetically mentioned that the authorship of letter to the hebrews is not 100 percent by paul --stan, march 18, 2007

:I agree with you; authorship of Hebrews is disputed, but it does lean toward Paul. The point here for this article is a straight history of the Bible as I outlined above, with no sidetracking. The thing you indicated should be put in, but as a subject topic for either the article on Hebrews, or a separate article altogether. If you're willing to take up the task, write what Hebrews is all about, it's history, etc, then write the authorship; what current and past scholars said about it.

:The thing is, because the subject is the Bible, ''every thing written here about the Bible and each book is going to respect Christians and Jews''. As it was said in the Commandments page, this is a family site, and a lot of families hold the Bible as precious. We are going to respect that. Right now I am re-doing the article on [[Genesis]] because the original editor decided not to do it in a respectful way. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:30, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Translations==
At present the article rather gives the impression that all translations are equally valid. In fact, few are as literal - but, at the same time, as generally incomprehensible and occasionally as inaccurate - as the King James Version. It might therefore be worth suggesting this - with caveats - as a basic reference. On the other hand, there are other versions, such as the NIV, which deliberately skew certain words (as, for example, in Genesis 2 and Exodus 20) to fit Christian, and especially fundamentalist dogma. Readers need to be warned of this. Thus, a section needs to be added on translations, suggesting that all assertions regarding what the Bible says need to be checked with at least two translations, one of them being the KJV. The ''Blue Letter Bible'' deserves a mention in this connection, too. However, I see that the rest of us aren't allowed to add such ideas! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I closed it to protect the site from vandalism, and the vandalism was constant. I also wanted just a basic overview of the Bible and its history, but since there are so many versions, adding each one and the related controversy would be ''overkill'' for the article itself, which is what I want to avoid. This includes the subheadings on selected individual versions...just the basics was all that was needed here. So, two things:
*If it is necessary to add something to the article, just post a brief here, and I will open up the article for its inclusion...then all you have to do is to write it in and write it well.
*If the info in question is too long, and has the pro/con stuff, do a separate article on the subject, and I will get a "see also" subheading added. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:46, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks. Why don't I, as a professional translator, just write it here? You can then assess and edit it before including it yourself if you wish, without risk of vandals butting in (though it would be nice to consult me before altering it)!...

:::(Title) '''Bible translations'''
:::When quoting passages from the Bible in Conservapedia, it is important to remember that the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew (apart from a few sections in Aramaic), and the New Testament in Greek. English versions of these often come at second-hand, are rarely completely accurate, and can never be regarded (any more than can any translation of any document whatever) as ''the'' translation. However, some general guidelines are appropriate here:

:::1. Always refer to at least one 'literal' translation, such as the King James Version. This may be old-fashioned, and is occasionally incompetent, but at least it attempts to render every word of the original, and indicates in italics any conjectural forms. It has other advantages for reference-purposes, too (see below).

:::2. In choosing your secondary source, compare it carefully with the KJV to see whether any words have been 'skewed' to fit modern Christian preconceptions. Neither the NIV nor the ''New Jerusalem Bible'', with their particular religious affiliations, are entirely guiltless in this regard. The ''New English Bible'', while extremely readable and innocent of this particular problem, can occasionally be over-free. Up to 50 other versions can be compared verse-for-verse here [http://www.biblegateway.com/], whereupon the 'mavericks' will usually be found to stand out clearly. Bear in mind, though, that most recent translations are copyright.

:::3. A further useful reference is the ''Blue Letter Bible'', which may be found here [http://www.blueletterbible.org/], and which presents and analyses the original Hebrew, Aramaic and/or Greek versions alongside the KJV text.

:::4. Finally, reference to a good Concordance such as Young's ''Analytical Concordance to the Bible'' or Cruden's ''Complete Concordance to the Old and New Testaments'' can help to tie down the true meanings of the original texts: these, too, are based on the KJV text - a fact which renders point 1. above doubly important.

:::''And always remember, even then, that any words you may quote in English here are '''not''' the original words!''

::[OK, try that for size!] --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:18, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I think that calls for a separate article. I do agree with you that over the years men have distorted the Bible's original meaning and words; for example, in the New Testament Jesus is refered to by the title of "cornerstone", which is the first, most important block of the foundation of a building. The NIV changes that to "capstone", which is ''the last'' block added to a building...and it's not right to do everything first and maybe add Jesus last, when it should be the other way around.

'''Differences Between Bible Versions''' might make a good title, with it written in parallel fashion, say the KJV on the left, the NIV on the right, with differences highlighted and reasons for the changes. A great amount of detail can go into it. What do you think? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:31, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, the Hebrew means ''either'' 'cornerstone' ''or'' 'capstone' - though it's difficult to see how you can have a ''chief'' cornerstone. I suspect the imagery is meant to be more like that on the back of the dollar bill - whence, perhaps, the imagery on the back of the dollar bill!

::Yes, '''Differences Between Bible Versions''' looks good to me (as long as ''you'' do it and mention the main points above, especially the last one!), and the NIV would provide some much-needed comparisons (or rather, contrasts)! You can take your examples directly from the admitted rant at [http://www.av1611.org/niv.html]. You'd need to be careful about coypright, though. I imagine the NIV is still in copyright, in which case you'd need permission for any extensive quoting. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Note: I TIMOTHY 3:16 in the original Greek does not say God. There is a use of Kai (and) that ''might'' carry the God reference from I TIMOTHY 3:15, but that's debateable. The key word is "estin" -- he is, he becomes. (BTW, the Vulgate follows the same format as the Greek). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Note: in PHILIPPIANS 2:6 "consider" is in the Vulgate (arbitratus): the Greek has egesato, from agazomai, from agamai which can mean either admire or envy. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Note: In the original Greek, the text of LUKE 2:33 is pater autou (his father), Joe ain't mentioned. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yet another note: COLOSSIANS 1:14 does not mention blood in the original Greek. The NIV is actually more accurate. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:59, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Again, re Mark 1:2,3 -- the KJV edited the text to fix the error. The original Greek is en to esaia to prophete (in (the) Isaiah the prophet). Not "in the Prophets". Ditto for the Vulgate, in Esaia propheta. The KJV is inaccurate in it's translation, apparently in an attempt to fix an error by the author of Mark. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 09:11, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:I would suggest also looking into ''The Five Books of Moses'', by Robert Alter, [http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780393019551&itm=1], as it shows the flaws in all well-known translations, not just the KJV, but the LXX and Vulgate as well.
:Personal comment (as the second professional translator on this page): Of special note is that whole "in the beginning" bit shows more about the thought patterns of the Greeks and Romans with their insertion of ''en arche'' (why no Greek font?) and ''in principio'' than it does anything else -- "In the beginning" does not exist in the Hebrew. In fact, much of the OT as defined in the Septuagint and Vulgate, and by extension the KJV, is that way, and the NT was clearly aimed at the Greeks.
:Finally, the translations from the Hebrew have reflected an attempt to translate based on newer iterations of Hebrew, and often miss the nuances of the original Hebrew text. For example, the "without form, and void" is semantically incorrect, the better translation is "welter and waste". There are nuances missed in the KJV, and the Vulgate's "inanis et vacua" is no better at catching the nuances. The Greek "aoratos kai akataskeuastos" (aargh, where is the greek font?!?), misses the nuance in the same exact way. Why? Because while there is a myth that the Vulgate and KJV were translated from the original Hebrew, they are actually faithful translations of the Septuagint, as is obvious to anyone familiar with forensic linguistics. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 15:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::The KJV as it is right now is based on the last English language update it had (1727).

::When the scholars did the KJV back in the early 1600s, they did consult and use other existing versions as guides, the Septuagint and the Vulgate being two. But their main guides were the Masoretic Text as used by the Jews, and the best Greek translations then current, as well as the best ancient Greek manuscripts they knew existed for the New Testament. For that particular time frame, they knew what they were doing. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Of course, the Masoretic texts being compiled 1000 to 1700 years after the original text, and Hebrew being a language like all other living languages, that is to say a changing one, the Hebrew of the original is substantially different (think Modern English vs the Old English of Beowulf). Nonetheless, given that he same exact mistakes are found in the KJV, the LXX and the Vulgate, it is clear that the LXX and Vulgate were used as more than mere guides.
:Given that the NT was written in Greek (Koine to be exact), I'm not sure what your point is re "best ancient Greek manuscripts they knew existed for the New Testament". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 05:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

With respect, I do not believe in the statements doubting authorship of the Bible by anyone other than the Biblical writers of tradition. But, and I do want to make this clear to everyone, what NousEpirrhytos has written is still part of the Bible's history, albeit a critical view (and he did do a lot of groundwork by the way), and as such I think a separte article concerning textual criticism of the Bible is warranted. According to rules set down by Conservapedia, there must be a point and counterpoint, i.e. a clear concise and authoritative rebuttal to a clear and concise critical view. What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think that might be served, in part, precisely by the two-column arrangement you were suggesting earlier - KJV against NIV, whose manifest corruptions you can easily collect from the web-rant mentioned earlier. On the other hand, it might be more positively productive to add a third column on the right representing a reasonable modern compromise - NAS, perhaps, culled from Bible Gateway. If there's only room for two, though, I think, on reflection, that I would vote for KJV alongisde NAS. Take care with the title, BTW. The word 'Bible' needs to come first, or people aren't going to find the article. How about 'Bible versions compared'? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:32, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::We might not be able to use the NAS, as it is copyrighted by the Lockman Foundation. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm sure there's a way to handle this...however, the issue of the translations' relative accuracy might lead to original research (as in my "Notes" above). Most critical discussions of translations are new enough to be copyrighted, so probably not useable, and not everyone can read Greek or Latin, so including these older texts might be problematic. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Why not ask Lockman? You're entitled to quote up to 200 words or so with due acknowledgement without permission anyway as 'fair use'. They might be happy to let you use more for nothing if you point out that it's by way of criticism and review, and recommending them as a modern source. Otherwise choose another reasonable, modern one? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Portal ==

Please add <nowiki>[[Category:Book of Worship]]</nowiki> as a Bible category.--[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 14:30, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:Can do! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Truth redirect==
Why is [[Truth]] redirected here?

==Name==
Once again, take care! Greek ''biblos'' doesn't mean 'book' (it's 'papyrus'), and ''la Biblia'' isn't Latin (though ''biblia'' is)! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:22, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
:Found the source...''biblos'' does mean ''book''...but before that it came from ''byblos'', meaning papyrus. ''biblos'' in turn led to the Latin word ''biblia'', and the word ''bible'' came to us from that via the French. The line shall be updated. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:09, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
::The original meaning of biblos is indeed parpyrus, scroll, paper. The usage of the word to mean book occurs a bit later in Koine, although biblion (little book) was more common. Biblia is from the plural of biblion, and comes from the original title of the Greek version of the bible, ta biblia ta hagia -- τὰ βιβλία τὰ ἅγια -- meaning "the holy books"
::BTW, the word was ''never'' Byblos -- that was the name of a Phonoecian city that produced papyri, biblos was then derived from the town name with an iota replacing the upsilon. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:29, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Bible

2007-04-07T12:29:38Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* Name */

{{protect|MountainDew}}

== Either un-protect or fix the Name section ==
This is a disgrace. Whoever has protected this article, fix the Name section immediately.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 01:08, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:name section fixed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:04, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

That's odd. I don't remember seeing that when I protected the article. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==Article is too brief!==
This is '''The Bible!''' Don't you think the Word of God deserves a greater article, one with more detail on the subject and its history? I think so! In fact, I think I will start out by doing just that, and here's the proposed layout:

*Intro
*Brief listing of the books within, divided of course into Old/New Testaments.
*History of the Bible...as in '''who wrote it'''.
*Why the world accepts/rejects it.
*Current status
*Include pics and charts and links.

What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:28, 11 March 2007 (EST)

== Why describe it when we can transcribe it? ==

Sounds good to me. But why not PUT the whole Bible on here? It gets quoted often enough.

:Well, the Bible is rather large. I think that the Bible as a whole work can be treated the right way here, with possibly separate articles covering each book, where greater detail is needed.

:I also uploaded a lead-in photograph, but am having trouble with it for the article. Can you help? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:43, 11 March 2007 (EST)

The links I mentioned can be two-fold: a link to online Bible sites where complete versions have been transcribed and posted; and links to Bible software which can be downloaded and run off computers. I happen to have E-Sword, which is very good [www.e-sword.net]. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:46, 11 March 2007 (EST)

==What happened so far==
I took the layout to the next step, which is subsections on both Testaments. The Old Testament has been written with emphasis on its Hebrew origins (Torah, Tanakh, etc), which I feel is a good description anyway, and does not detract from the Christian Bible with the exception of the actual arrangement of the books. I would like to see the Hebrew titles of these books in its own written language, but that may take a bit of editing the actual structure of Conservapedia to accept it.

The Apocrypha, if necessary, can have it's own subheading, but ''after'' the others as listed.

The History subsection can be written as either a history of the whole Bible, or divided into separate periods, as in history of the Torah; the Septuagint; the early Gospels, etc.

Since this is an article about the Bible, it should be restricted specifically to the Bible as a whole and its history. Other topics related to it, such as persecutions of Bible believers, divine creation as in Genesis, individual books, etc, should have their own articles. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==Is Conservapedia just a redacted Wikipedia?==

Somewhere around 80% of this article is a straight reproduction of the Wikipedia Bible article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible] with many of the less conservative points omitted. It seems that either a citation or a rewrite is in order. --[[User:Timothyo|Timothyo]] 21:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Rewrite, definately...what is there should suffice as a structure guide temporarily. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Two things that bug me about this. First and foremost, Wikipedia has a rule on it which states articles there fall under the GPFL thing, and they state specifically that all articles are free from copyright, to use, edit, misuse, whatever. So, if any content here is from Wikipedia, one can say "oh well" and leave it at that.

:Not quite... see my remarks below. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

But that led to some thinking here, and I wanted to see if the original writer(s) of this article had violated copyrights when they posted the material for the first time. I have here at home a book titled "Unger's Bible Dictionary" copyright 1966 by the Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, and the article within titled "Bible" has a number of elements that simply dovetail with the Wikipedia article. Which means there will be a re-write here so that there is no question. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:53, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, list the omitted conservative points you mentioned. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:55, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:The GDFL allows reuse only if the original authors are credited, and the article in which the material is reused is itself released under the GDFL, IIRC. So reuse of Wikipedia content is definitely not allowed here. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::When I posted that very question, it was never answered until now. Tolerate the material in question here for no more than a week, and only then for it's use as a template for something better. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::1) Aschafly has been pretty clear that he, at least, wants Conservapedia articles to be original, and not copies of anything, redacted or not.

:::2) Wikipedia is perfectly happy with the idea of building a "Wikipedia fork," that is a modified copy of Wikipedia. But. There are serious complications with this, due to the GFDL license (which is not easy for anyone to understand, apparently including Wikipedia).

:::3) The big GFDL issue, and the one that I sense Conservapedia will not agree to, is that if you copy and modify a Wikipedia article, you have to make the copy available under GFDL, too. This means a significant loss of control. For example, following the GFDL rules, if Conservapedia took a bunch of Wikipedia articles and rewrote them, and if a liberal cherrypicked the rewritten articles for the funniest examples of ludicrous over-the-top spin... including, of course, vandal edits... and published it in book form as "The Conservapedia Jokebook," I don't think Conservapedia could stop it. (Disclaimer 1: I'm not a lawyer. Disclaimer 2: I don't think ordinary lawyers understand intellectual property law. Disclaimer 3: I'm not so sure intellectual property lawyers understand intellectual property law.).

:::4) Another issue with the GFDL is that anything published under the GFDL must "preserve the history," whatever that means. If someone starts a new article at Wikipedia in 2003, and there are a thousand edits to it, and in 2007 you copy it, rework it, and republish it on Conservapedia, there is supposed to be some way for readers of the Conservapedia article to retrace all those steps if they want to. Nobody seems to be completely sure how to do this, or what does and doesn't really comply with the GFDL, which wasn't really designed to cover anything like Wikipedia. (Somewhere Wikipedia makes a qualified suggestion that ''possibly'' a simple link to the version of the WIkipedia article that served as the jumping-off point ''might'' do). So, Wikipedia encourages re-use, and there are in fact numerous commercial "mirrors" that duplicate Wikipedia content, but Wikipedia does not give any nice clear recipe on exactly how to go about producing a censored or redacted or reworked derivative of Wikipedia. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

It will be as original as possible. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Instead of waiting...==
Did a re-write of the article and removed the content in question. What remains is 1) that which is common to every work about the Bible, whether it's here, or Wikipedia, or Britannica, or many other works; and 2) the references section...Wikipedia most certainly cannot copyright a list of external sources.

But double-check what is there, and let me know what can be changed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Remaining subheadings to add==
Just added "Name" and "References" subheadings. Need to add an over-all history of the Bible, and add a subheading for the various versions in print...possibly with brief histories of each? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Separate articles==
Clicked on [[Genesis]], and got redirected back to the Bible page. Not right. Every book in the Bible should have its own detailed article page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==History of the Bible subheading==
For this, I have a rough layout:
*From the time it was first written down, under Moses, to the last OT book.
*the style of the writing, i.e. by hand and on what.
*Between the Testaments, as in the Septuagint.
*The New Testament
*the early versions of the Bible until the printing press
*Gutenburg and versions up to the KJV
*very brief listing of versions since, including internet impact.
Any other suggestions would be helpful. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:59, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Pictures==
I need two more pics to illustrate this. The first is a pic of a Torah scroll, and what I want to see are people near it with reverence. The second are good copies of New Testament fragments or pages which were hand-written. And of course, they need to be in the public domain, conforming to the rules, etc... [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:50, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==As it stands now==
Although the "History" part of it is not done at this time, the article itself should be written as a straight-up article about the Bible, with none of the allegations, questions, etc. that scholars and historians have made over the years against it. My reasons for it are two:
*Such allegations have been proven wrong time and time again, so why even bother to repeat them here?
*If such allegations need to be written down, then they need a separate article for each where they can be detailed as to points made, reasons why, who postulated them, and all evidence refutting them.
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:14, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Done==
This article is done. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:49, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Very '''very''' nice work there [[User:Karajou|Karajou]]!! Kudos! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 16:09, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::I hate kudos...but peanut M&M's is a nice stand-in! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:30, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Careful! Under 'Name', Greek ''biblos'' did ''not'' mean 'book' . It meant 'papyrus'. You are correct, though, in saying that the ''direct'' source was Greek ''biblia'', 'books' - i.e. the various canonical books of which it was composed. Also, under 'History of the Bible', you would do well to consult the most recent research of on-the-spot archeologists such as Finkelstein and Silberman before being ''too'' sure about the authorship and dating of the earliest books of the Bible! Some caution is also advisable about suggesting that the author of Matthew (whether or not that was his real name -- he doesn't claim that it was) was a direct disciple of Jesus. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== ...sources? ==

Considering how long the article is (I'm certainly impressed!), I find it odd that the entire thing just has five external links inside the article. I'm ''totally'' not going to plaster "fact" tags through the entire thing, but I think that an article with so much information could use a few more sources. Doesn't have to be right now, but more as a general remark. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:32, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, the order is for originality, which is what is here for the most part...but whether incorporated into the text or not, the article could benefit from additional sources. There are extensive links at the bottom of the article for internet info, but what I want are books from at least 50 years or more ago to include in the reference section. The article itself, which is laid out to be just ''about'' the Bible and a brief on its history, should remain the same without any of the controversial stuff others think has to be included...that is a subject for separate articles. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:39, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::Mh, yes, agreed. Tangential topics should get their own articles, possibly with "See also" links at the bottom if they're closely connected to this article. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Oh yes...if there's an article about, say Biblical criticism, then there will be a link here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:59, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The trouble is that, all the while this and other articles are locked, nobody else can insert the relevant links. It's self-defeating! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:13, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==E-Sword pic==
For the record, the image of the E-Sword screenshot is copyrighted, and used here with permission as per the summary. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Authorship of Hebrews?==

Hebrews' author has been disputed for thousands of years - it seems questionable to me to list it as a Pauline epistle without any sort of note that Paul is not its verified author. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 12:02, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

note from stanley d'cunha sdcunha@crescent.ae
i agree with daniel b douglas. the author should have at least parenthetically mentioned that the authorship of letter to the hebrews is not 100 percent by paul --stan, march 18, 2007

:I agree with you; authorship of Hebrews is disputed, but it does lean toward Paul. The point here for this article is a straight history of the Bible as I outlined above, with no sidetracking. The thing you indicated should be put in, but as a subject topic for either the article on Hebrews, or a separate article altogether. If you're willing to take up the task, write what Hebrews is all about, it's history, etc, then write the authorship; what current and past scholars said about it.

:The thing is, because the subject is the Bible, ''every thing written here about the Bible and each book is going to respect Christians and Jews''. As it was said in the Commandments page, this is a family site, and a lot of families hold the Bible as precious. We are going to respect that. Right now I am re-doing the article on [[Genesis]] because the original editor decided not to do it in a respectful way. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:30, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Translations==
At present the article rather gives the impression that all translations are equally valid. In fact, few are as literal - but, at the same time, as generally incomprehensible and occasionally as inaccurate - as the King James Version. It might therefore be worth suggesting this - with caveats - as a basic reference. On the other hand, there are other versions, such as the NIV, which deliberately skew certain words (as, for example, in Genesis 2 and Exodus 20) to fit Christian, and especially fundamentalist dogma. Readers need to be warned of this. Thus, a section needs to be added on translations, suggesting that all assertions regarding what the Bible says need to be checked with at least two translations, one of them being the KJV. The ''Blue Letter Bible'' deserves a mention in this connection, too. However, I see that the rest of us aren't allowed to add such ideas! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I closed it to protect the site from vandalism, and the vandalism was constant. I also wanted just a basic overview of the Bible and its history, but since there are so many versions, adding each one and the related controversy would be ''overkill'' for the article itself, which is what I want to avoid. This includes the subheadings on selected individual versions...just the basics was all that was needed here. So, two things:
*If it is necessary to add something to the article, just post a brief here, and I will open up the article for its inclusion...then all you have to do is to write it in and write it well.
*If the info in question is too long, and has the pro/con stuff, do a separate article on the subject, and I will get a "see also" subheading added. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:46, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks. Why don't I, as a professional translator, just write it here? You can then assess and edit it before including it yourself if you wish, without risk of vandals butting in (though it would be nice to consult me before altering it)!...

:::(Title) '''Bible translations'''
:::When quoting passages from the Bible in Conservapedia, it is important to remember that the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew (apart from a few sections in Aramaic), and the New Testament in Greek. English versions of these often come at second-hand, are rarely completely accurate, and can never be regarded (any more than can any translation of any document whatever) as ''the'' translation. However, some general guidelines are appropriate here:

:::1. Always refer to at least one 'literal' translation, such as the King James Version. This may be old-fashioned, and is occasionally incompetent, but at least it attempts to render every word of the original, and indicates in italics any conjectural forms. It has other advantages for reference-purposes, too (see below).

:::2. In choosing your secondary source, compare it carefully with the KJV to see whether any words have been 'skewed' to fit modern Christian preconceptions. Neither the NIV nor the ''New Jerusalem Bible'', with their particular religious affiliations, are entirely guiltless in this regard. The ''New English Bible'', while extremely readable and innocent of this particular problem, can occasionally be over-free. Up to 50 other versions can be compared verse-for-verse here [http://www.biblegateway.com/], whereupon the 'mavericks' will usually be found to stand out clearly. Bear in mind, though, that most recent translations are copyright.

:::3. A further useful reference is the ''Blue Letter Bible'', which may be found here [http://www.blueletterbible.org/], and which presents and analyses the original Hebrew, Aramaic and/or Greek versions alongside the KJV text.

:::4. Finally, reference to a good Concordance such as Young's ''Analytical Concordance to the Bible'' or Cruden's ''Complete Concordance to the Old and New Testaments'' can help to tie down the true meanings of the original texts: these, too, are based on the KJV text - a fact which renders point 1. above doubly important.

:::''And always remember, even then, that any words you may quote in English here are '''not''' the original words!''

::[OK, try that for size!] --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:18, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I think that calls for a separate article. I do agree with you that over the years men have distorted the Bible's original meaning and words; for example, in the New Testament Jesus is refered to by the title of "cornerstone", which is the first, most important block of the foundation of a building. The NIV changes that to "capstone", which is ''the last'' block added to a building...and it's not right to do everything first and maybe add Jesus last, when it should be the other way around.

'''Differences Between Bible Versions''' might make a good title, with it written in parallel fashion, say the KJV on the left, the NIV on the right, with differences highlighted and reasons for the changes. A great amount of detail can go into it. What do you think? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:31, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, the Hebrew means ''either'' 'cornerstone' ''or'' 'capstone' - though it's difficult to see how you can have a ''chief'' cornerstone. I suspect the imagery is meant to be more like that on the back of the dollar bill - whence, perhaps, the imagery on the back of the dollar bill!

::Yes, '''Differences Between Bible Versions''' looks good to me (as long as ''you'' do it and mention the main points above, especially the last one!), and the NIV would provide some much-needed comparisons (or rather, contrasts)! You can take your examples directly from the admitted rant at [http://www.av1611.org/niv.html]. You'd need to be careful about coypright, though. I imagine the NIV is still in copyright, in which case you'd need permission for any extensive quoting. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Note: I TIMOTHY 3:16 in the original Greek does not say God. There is a use of Kai (and) that ''might'' carry the God reference from I TIMOTHY 3:15, but that's debateable. The key word is "estin" -- he is, he becomes. (BTW, the Vulgate follows the same format as the Greek). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Note: in PHILIPPIANS 2:6 "consider" is in the Vulgate (arbitratus): the Greek has egesato, from agazomai, from agamai which can mean either admire or envy. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Note: In the original Greek, the text of LUKE 2:33 is pater autou (his father), Joe ain't mentioned. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yet another note: COLOSSIANS 1:14 does not mention blood in the original Greek. The NIV is actually more accurate. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:59, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Again, re Mark 1:2,3 -- the KJV edited the text to fix the error. The original Greek is en to esaia to prophete (in (the) Isaiah the prophet). Not "in the Prophets". Ditto for the Vulgate, in Esaia propheta. The KJV is inaccurate in it's translation, apparently in an attempt to fix an error by the author of Mark. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 09:11, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:I would suggest also looking into ''The Five Books of Moses'', by Robert Alter, [http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780393019551&itm=1], as it shows the flaws in all well-known translations, not just the KJV, but the LXX and Vulgate as well.
:Personal comment (as the second professional translator on this page): Of special note is that whole "in the beginning" bit shows more about the thought patterns of the Greeks and Romans with their insertion of ''en arche'' (why no Greek font?) and ''in principio'' than it does anything else -- "In the beginning" does not exist in the Hebrew. In fact, much of the OT as defined in the Septuagint and Vulgate, and by extension the KJV, is that way, and the NT was clearly aimed at the Greeks.
:Finally, the translations from the Hebrew have reflected an attempt to translate based on newer iterations of Hebrew, and often miss the nuances of the original Hebrew text. For example, the "without form, and void" is semantically incorrect, the better translation is "welter and waste". There are nuances missed in the KJV, and the Vulgate's "inanis et vacua" is no better at catching the nuances. The Greek "aoratos kai akataskeuastos" (aargh, where is the greek font?!?), misses the nuance in the same exact way. Why? Because while there is a myth that the Vulgate and KJV were translated from the original Hebrew, they are actually faithful translations of the Septuagint, as is obvious to anyone familiar with forensic linguistics. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 15:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::The KJV as it is right now is based on the last English language update it had (1727).

::When the scholars did the KJV back in the early 1600s, they did consult and use other existing versions as guides, the Septuagint and the Vulgate being two. But their main guides were the Masoretic Text as used by the Jews, and the best Greek translations then current, as well as the best ancient Greek manuscripts they knew existed for the New Testament. For that particular time frame, they knew what they were doing. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Of course, the Masoretic texts being compiled 1000 to 1700 years after the original text, and Hebrew being a language like all other living languages, that is to say a changing one, the Hebrew of the original is substantially different (think Modern English vs the Old English of Beowulf). Nonetheless, given that he same exact mistakes are found in the KJV, the LXX and the Vulgate, it is clear that the LXX and Vulgate were used as more than mere guides.
:Given that the NT was written in Greek (Koine to be exact), I'm not sure what your point is re "best ancient Greek manuscripts they knew existed for the New Testament". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 05:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

With respect, I do not believe in the statements doubting authorship of the Bible by anyone other than the Biblical writers of tradition. But, and I do want to make this clear to everyone, what NousEpirrhytos has written is still part of the Bible's history, albeit a critical view (and he did do a lot of groundwork by the way), and as such I think a separte article concerning textual criticism of the Bible is warranted. According to rules set down by Conservapedia, there must be a point and counterpoint, i.e. a clear concise and authoritative rebuttal to a clear and concise critical view. What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think that might be served, in part, precisely by the two-column arrangement you were suggesting earlier - KJV against NIV, whose manifest corruptions you can easily collect from the web-rant mentioned earlier. On the other hand, it might be more positively productive to add a third column on the right representing a reasonable modern compromise - NAS, perhaps, culled from Bible Gateway. If there's only room for two, though, I think, on reflection, that I would vote for KJV alongisde NAS. Take care with the title, BTW. The word 'Bible' needs to come first, or people aren't going to find the article. How about 'Bible versions compared'? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:32, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::We might not be able to use the NAS, as it is copyrighted by the Lockman Foundation. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm sure there's a way to handle this...however, the issue of the translations' relative accuracy might lead to original research (as in my "Notes" above). Most critical discussions of translations are new enough to be copyrighted, so probably not useable, and not everyone can read Greek or Latin, so including these older texts might be problematic. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Why not ask Lockman? You're entitled to quote up to 200 words or so with due acknowledgement without permission anyway as 'fair use'. They might be happy to let you use more for nothing if you point out that it's by way of criticism and review, and recommending them as a modern source. Otherwise choose another reasonable, modern one? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Portal ==

Please add <nowiki>[[Category:Book of Worship]]</nowiki> as a Bible category.--[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 14:30, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:Can do! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Truth redirect==
Why is [[Truth]] redirected here?

==Name==
Once again, take care! Greek ''biblos'' doesn't mean 'book' (it's 'papyrus'), and ''la Biblia'' isn't Latin (though ''biblia'' is)! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:22, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
:Found the source...''biblos'' does mean ''book''...but before that it came from ''byblos'', meaning papyrus. ''biblos'' in turn led to the Latin word ''biblia'', and the word ''bible'' came to us from that via the French. The line shall be updated. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:09, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
:The original meaning of biblos is indeed parpyrus, scroll, paper. The usage of the word to mean book occurs a bit later in Koine, although biblion (little book) was more common. Biblia is from the plural of biblion, and comes from the original title of the Greek version of the bible, ta biblia ta hagia -- τὰ βιβλία τὰ ἅγια -- meaning "the holy books"
:BTW, the word was ''never'' Byblos -- that was the name of a Phonoecian city that produced papyri, biblos was then derived from the town name with an iota replacing the upsilon. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:29, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Bible

2007-04-07T12:29:21Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* Name */

{{protect|MountainDew}}

== Either un-protect or fix the Name section ==
This is a disgrace. Whoever has protected this article, fix the Name section immediately.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 01:08, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:name section fixed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:04, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

That's odd. I don't remember seeing that when I protected the article. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==Article is too brief!==
This is '''The Bible!''' Don't you think the Word of God deserves a greater article, one with more detail on the subject and its history? I think so! In fact, I think I will start out by doing just that, and here's the proposed layout:

*Intro
*Brief listing of the books within, divided of course into Old/New Testaments.
*History of the Bible...as in '''who wrote it'''.
*Why the world accepts/rejects it.
*Current status
*Include pics and charts and links.

What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:28, 11 March 2007 (EST)

== Why describe it when we can transcribe it? ==

Sounds good to me. But why not PUT the whole Bible on here? It gets quoted often enough.

:Well, the Bible is rather large. I think that the Bible as a whole work can be treated the right way here, with possibly separate articles covering each book, where greater detail is needed.

:I also uploaded a lead-in photograph, but am having trouble with it for the article. Can you help? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:43, 11 March 2007 (EST)

The links I mentioned can be two-fold: a link to online Bible sites where complete versions have been transcribed and posted; and links to Bible software which can be downloaded and run off computers. I happen to have E-Sword, which is very good [www.e-sword.net]. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:46, 11 March 2007 (EST)

==What happened so far==
I took the layout to the next step, which is subsections on both Testaments. The Old Testament has been written with emphasis on its Hebrew origins (Torah, Tanakh, etc), which I feel is a good description anyway, and does not detract from the Christian Bible with the exception of the actual arrangement of the books. I would like to see the Hebrew titles of these books in its own written language, but that may take a bit of editing the actual structure of Conservapedia to accept it.

The Apocrypha, if necessary, can have it's own subheading, but ''after'' the others as listed.

The History subsection can be written as either a history of the whole Bible, or divided into separate periods, as in history of the Torah; the Septuagint; the early Gospels, etc.

Since this is an article about the Bible, it should be restricted specifically to the Bible as a whole and its history. Other topics related to it, such as persecutions of Bible believers, divine creation as in Genesis, individual books, etc, should have their own articles. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==Is Conservapedia just a redacted Wikipedia?==

Somewhere around 80% of this article is a straight reproduction of the Wikipedia Bible article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible] with many of the less conservative points omitted. It seems that either a citation or a rewrite is in order. --[[User:Timothyo|Timothyo]] 21:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Rewrite, definately...what is there should suffice as a structure guide temporarily. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Two things that bug me about this. First and foremost, Wikipedia has a rule on it which states articles there fall under the GPFL thing, and they state specifically that all articles are free from copyright, to use, edit, misuse, whatever. So, if any content here is from Wikipedia, one can say "oh well" and leave it at that.

:Not quite... see my remarks below. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

But that led to some thinking here, and I wanted to see if the original writer(s) of this article had violated copyrights when they posted the material for the first time. I have here at home a book titled "Unger's Bible Dictionary" copyright 1966 by the Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, and the article within titled "Bible" has a number of elements that simply dovetail with the Wikipedia article. Which means there will be a re-write here so that there is no question. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:53, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, list the omitted conservative points you mentioned. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:55, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:The GDFL allows reuse only if the original authors are credited, and the article in which the material is reused is itself released under the GDFL, IIRC. So reuse of Wikipedia content is definitely not allowed here. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::When I posted that very question, it was never answered until now. Tolerate the material in question here for no more than a week, and only then for it's use as a template for something better. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::1) Aschafly has been pretty clear that he, at least, wants Conservapedia articles to be original, and not copies of anything, redacted or not.

:::2) Wikipedia is perfectly happy with the idea of building a "Wikipedia fork," that is a modified copy of Wikipedia. But. There are serious complications with this, due to the GFDL license (which is not easy for anyone to understand, apparently including Wikipedia).

:::3) The big GFDL issue, and the one that I sense Conservapedia will not agree to, is that if you copy and modify a Wikipedia article, you have to make the copy available under GFDL, too. This means a significant loss of control. For example, following the GFDL rules, if Conservapedia took a bunch of Wikipedia articles and rewrote them, and if a liberal cherrypicked the rewritten articles for the funniest examples of ludicrous over-the-top spin... including, of course, vandal edits... and published it in book form as "The Conservapedia Jokebook," I don't think Conservapedia could stop it. (Disclaimer 1: I'm not a lawyer. Disclaimer 2: I don't think ordinary lawyers understand intellectual property law. Disclaimer 3: I'm not so sure intellectual property lawyers understand intellectual property law.).

:::4) Another issue with the GFDL is that anything published under the GFDL must "preserve the history," whatever that means. If someone starts a new article at Wikipedia in 2003, and there are a thousand edits to it, and in 2007 you copy it, rework it, and republish it on Conservapedia, there is supposed to be some way for readers of the Conservapedia article to retrace all those steps if they want to. Nobody seems to be completely sure how to do this, or what does and doesn't really comply with the GFDL, which wasn't really designed to cover anything like Wikipedia. (Somewhere Wikipedia makes a qualified suggestion that ''possibly'' a simple link to the version of the WIkipedia article that served as the jumping-off point ''might'' do). So, Wikipedia encourages re-use, and there are in fact numerous commercial "mirrors" that duplicate Wikipedia content, but Wikipedia does not give any nice clear recipe on exactly how to go about producing a censored or redacted or reworked derivative of Wikipedia. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

It will be as original as possible. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Instead of waiting...==
Did a re-write of the article and removed the content in question. What remains is 1) that which is common to every work about the Bible, whether it's here, or Wikipedia, or Britannica, or many other works; and 2) the references section...Wikipedia most certainly cannot copyright a list of external sources.

But double-check what is there, and let me know what can be changed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Remaining subheadings to add==
Just added "Name" and "References" subheadings. Need to add an over-all history of the Bible, and add a subheading for the various versions in print...possibly with brief histories of each? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Separate articles==
Clicked on [[Genesis]], and got redirected back to the Bible page. Not right. Every book in the Bible should have its own detailed article page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==History of the Bible subheading==
For this, I have a rough layout:
*From the time it was first written down, under Moses, to the last OT book.
*the style of the writing, i.e. by hand and on what.
*Between the Testaments, as in the Septuagint.
*The New Testament
*the early versions of the Bible until the printing press
*Gutenburg and versions up to the KJV
*very brief listing of versions since, including internet impact.
Any other suggestions would be helpful. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:59, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Pictures==
I need two more pics to illustrate this. The first is a pic of a Torah scroll, and what I want to see are people near it with reverence. The second are good copies of New Testament fragments or pages which were hand-written. And of course, they need to be in the public domain, conforming to the rules, etc... [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:50, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==As it stands now==
Although the "History" part of it is not done at this time, the article itself should be written as a straight-up article about the Bible, with none of the allegations, questions, etc. that scholars and historians have made over the years against it. My reasons for it are two:
*Such allegations have been proven wrong time and time again, so why even bother to repeat them here?
*If such allegations need to be written down, then they need a separate article for each where they can be detailed as to points made, reasons why, who postulated them, and all evidence refutting them.
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:14, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Done==
This article is done. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:49, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Very '''very''' nice work there [[User:Karajou|Karajou]]!! Kudos! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 16:09, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::I hate kudos...but peanut M&M's is a nice stand-in! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:30, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Careful! Under 'Name', Greek ''biblos'' did ''not'' mean 'book' . It meant 'papyrus'. You are correct, though, in saying that the ''direct'' source was Greek ''biblia'', 'books' - i.e. the various canonical books of which it was composed. Also, under 'History of the Bible', you would do well to consult the most recent research of on-the-spot archeologists such as Finkelstein and Silberman before being ''too'' sure about the authorship and dating of the earliest books of the Bible! Some caution is also advisable about suggesting that the author of Matthew (whether or not that was his real name -- he doesn't claim that it was) was a direct disciple of Jesus. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== ...sources? ==

Considering how long the article is (I'm certainly impressed!), I find it odd that the entire thing just has five external links inside the article. I'm ''totally'' not going to plaster "fact" tags through the entire thing, but I think that an article with so much information could use a few more sources. Doesn't have to be right now, but more as a general remark. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:32, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, the order is for originality, which is what is here for the most part...but whether incorporated into the text or not, the article could benefit from additional sources. There are extensive links at the bottom of the article for internet info, but what I want are books from at least 50 years or more ago to include in the reference section. The article itself, which is laid out to be just ''about'' the Bible and a brief on its history, should remain the same without any of the controversial stuff others think has to be included...that is a subject for separate articles. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:39, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::Mh, yes, agreed. Tangential topics should get their own articles, possibly with "See also" links at the bottom if they're closely connected to this article. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Oh yes...if there's an article about, say Biblical criticism, then there will be a link here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:59, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::::The trouble is that, all the while this and other articles are locked, nobody else can insert the relevant links. It's self-defeating! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:13, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==E-Sword pic==
For the record, the image of the E-Sword screenshot is copyrighted, and used here with permission as per the summary. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Authorship of Hebrews?==

Hebrews' author has been disputed for thousands of years - it seems questionable to me to list it as a Pauline epistle without any sort of note that Paul is not its verified author. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 12:02, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

note from stanley d'cunha sdcunha@crescent.ae
i agree with daniel b douglas. the author should have at least parenthetically mentioned that the authorship of letter to the hebrews is not 100 percent by paul --stan, march 18, 2007

:I agree with you; authorship of Hebrews is disputed, but it does lean toward Paul. The point here for this article is a straight history of the Bible as I outlined above, with no sidetracking. The thing you indicated should be put in, but as a subject topic for either the article on Hebrews, or a separate article altogether. If you're willing to take up the task, write what Hebrews is all about, it's history, etc, then write the authorship; what current and past scholars said about it.

:The thing is, because the subject is the Bible, ''every thing written here about the Bible and each book is going to respect Christians and Jews''. As it was said in the Commandments page, this is a family site, and a lot of families hold the Bible as precious. We are going to respect that. Right now I am re-doing the article on [[Genesis]] because the original editor decided not to do it in a respectful way. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:30, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Translations==
At present the article rather gives the impression that all translations are equally valid. In fact, few are as literal - but, at the same time, as generally incomprehensible and occasionally as inaccurate - as the King James Version. It might therefore be worth suggesting this - with caveats - as a basic reference. On the other hand, there are other versions, such as the NIV, which deliberately skew certain words (as, for example, in Genesis 2 and Exodus 20) to fit Christian, and especially fundamentalist dogma. Readers need to be warned of this. Thus, a section needs to be added on translations, suggesting that all assertions regarding what the Bible says need to be checked with at least two translations, one of them being the KJV. The ''Blue Letter Bible'' deserves a mention in this connection, too. However, I see that the rest of us aren't allowed to add such ideas! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I closed it to protect the site from vandalism, and the vandalism was constant. I also wanted just a basic overview of the Bible and its history, but since there are so many versions, adding each one and the related controversy would be ''overkill'' for the article itself, which is what I want to avoid. This includes the subheadings on selected individual versions...just the basics was all that was needed here. So, two things:
*If it is necessary to add something to the article, just post a brief here, and I will open up the article for its inclusion...then all you have to do is to write it in and write it well.
*If the info in question is too long, and has the pro/con stuff, do a separate article on the subject, and I will get a "see also" subheading added. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:46, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks. Why don't I, as a professional translator, just write it here? You can then assess and edit it before including it yourself if you wish, without risk of vandals butting in (though it would be nice to consult me before altering it)!...

:::(Title) '''Bible translations'''
:::When quoting passages from the Bible in Conservapedia, it is important to remember that the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew (apart from a few sections in Aramaic), and the New Testament in Greek. English versions of these often come at second-hand, are rarely completely accurate, and can never be regarded (any more than can any translation of any document whatever) as ''the'' translation. However, some general guidelines are appropriate here:

:::1. Always refer to at least one 'literal' translation, such as the King James Version. This may be old-fashioned, and is occasionally incompetent, but at least it attempts to render every word of the original, and indicates in italics any conjectural forms. It has other advantages for reference-purposes, too (see below).

:::2. In choosing your secondary source, compare it carefully with the KJV to see whether any words have been 'skewed' to fit modern Christian preconceptions. Neither the NIV nor the ''New Jerusalem Bible'', with their particular religious affiliations, are entirely guiltless in this regard. The ''New English Bible'', while extremely readable and innocent of this particular problem, can occasionally be over-free. Up to 50 other versions can be compared verse-for-verse here [http://www.biblegateway.com/], whereupon the 'mavericks' will usually be found to stand out clearly. Bear in mind, though, that most recent translations are copyright.

:::3. A further useful reference is the ''Blue Letter Bible'', which may be found here [http://www.blueletterbible.org/], and which presents and analyses the original Hebrew, Aramaic and/or Greek versions alongside the KJV text.

:::4. Finally, reference to a good Concordance such as Young's ''Analytical Concordance to the Bible'' or Cruden's ''Complete Concordance to the Old and New Testaments'' can help to tie down the true meanings of the original texts: these, too, are based on the KJV text - a fact which renders point 1. above doubly important.

:::''And always remember, even then, that any words you may quote in English here are '''not''' the original words!''

::[OK, try that for size!] --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:18, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I think that calls for a separate article. I do agree with you that over the years men have distorted the Bible's original meaning and words; for example, in the New Testament Jesus is refered to by the title of "cornerstone", which is the first, most important block of the foundation of a building. The NIV changes that to "capstone", which is ''the last'' block added to a building...and it's not right to do everything first and maybe add Jesus last, when it should be the other way around.

'''Differences Between Bible Versions''' might make a good title, with it written in parallel fashion, say the KJV on the left, the NIV on the right, with differences highlighted and reasons for the changes. A great amount of detail can go into it. What do you think? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:31, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, the Hebrew means ''either'' 'cornerstone' ''or'' 'capstone' - though it's difficult to see how you can have a ''chief'' cornerstone. I suspect the imagery is meant to be more like that on the back of the dollar bill - whence, perhaps, the imagery on the back of the dollar bill!

::Yes, '''Differences Between Bible Versions''' looks good to me (as long as ''you'' do it and mention the main points above, especially the last one!), and the NIV would provide some much-needed comparisons (or rather, contrasts)! You can take your examples directly from the admitted rant at [http://www.av1611.org/niv.html]. You'd need to be careful about coypright, though. I imagine the NIV is still in copyright, in which case you'd need permission for any extensive quoting. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Note: I TIMOTHY 3:16 in the original Greek does not say God. There is a use of Kai (and) that ''might'' carry the God reference from I TIMOTHY 3:15, but that's debateable. The key word is "estin" -- he is, he becomes. (BTW, the Vulgate follows the same format as the Greek). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Note: in PHILIPPIANS 2:6 "consider" is in the Vulgate (arbitratus): the Greek has egesato, from agazomai, from agamai which can mean either admire or envy. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Note: In the original Greek, the text of LUKE 2:33 is pater autou (his father), Joe ain't mentioned. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yet another note: COLOSSIANS 1:14 does not mention blood in the original Greek. The NIV is actually more accurate. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:59, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Again, re Mark 1:2,3 -- the KJV edited the text to fix the error. The original Greek is en to esaia to prophete (in (the) Isaiah the prophet). Not "in the Prophets". Ditto for the Vulgate, in Esaia propheta. The KJV is inaccurate in it's translation, apparently in an attempt to fix an error by the author of Mark. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 09:11, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:I would suggest also looking into ''The Five Books of Moses'', by Robert Alter, [http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780393019551&itm=1], as it shows the flaws in all well-known translations, not just the KJV, but the LXX and Vulgate as well.
:Personal comment (as the second professional translator on this page): Of special note is that whole "in the beginning" bit shows more about the thought patterns of the Greeks and Romans with their insertion of ''en arche'' (why no Greek font?) and ''in principio'' than it does anything else -- "In the beginning" does not exist in the Hebrew. In fact, much of the OT as defined in the Septuagint and Vulgate, and by extension the KJV, is that way, and the NT was clearly aimed at the Greeks.
:Finally, the translations from the Hebrew have reflected an attempt to translate based on newer iterations of Hebrew, and often miss the nuances of the original Hebrew text. For example, the "without form, and void" is semantically incorrect, the better translation is "welter and waste". There are nuances missed in the KJV, and the Vulgate's "inanis et vacua" is no better at catching the nuances. The Greek "aoratos kai akataskeuastos" (aargh, where is the greek font?!?), misses the nuance in the same exact way. Why? Because while there is a myth that the Vulgate and KJV were translated from the original Hebrew, they are actually faithful translations of the Septuagint, as is obvious to anyone familiar with forensic linguistics. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 15:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::The KJV as it is right now is based on the last English language update it had (1727).

::When the scholars did the KJV back in the early 1600s, they did consult and use other existing versions as guides, the Septuagint and the Vulgate being two. But their main guides were the Masoretic Text as used by the Jews, and the best Greek translations then current, as well as the best ancient Greek manuscripts they knew existed for the New Testament. For that particular time frame, they knew what they were doing. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Of course, the Masoretic texts being compiled 1000 to 1700 years after the original text, and Hebrew being a language like all other living languages, that is to say a changing one, the Hebrew of the original is substantially different (think Modern English vs the Old English of Beowulf). Nonetheless, given that he same exact mistakes are found in the KJV, the LXX and the Vulgate, it is clear that the LXX and Vulgate were used as more than mere guides.
:Given that the NT was written in Greek (Koine to be exact), I'm not sure what your point is re "best ancient Greek manuscripts they knew existed for the New Testament". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 05:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

With respect, I do not believe in the statements doubting authorship of the Bible by anyone other than the Biblical writers of tradition. But, and I do want to make this clear to everyone, what NousEpirrhytos has written is still part of the Bible's history, albeit a critical view (and he did do a lot of groundwork by the way), and as such I think a separte article concerning textual criticism of the Bible is warranted. According to rules set down by Conservapedia, there must be a point and counterpoint, i.e. a clear concise and authoritative rebuttal to a clear and concise critical view. What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think that might be served, in part, precisely by the two-column arrangement you were suggesting earlier - KJV against NIV, whose manifest corruptions you can easily collect from the web-rant mentioned earlier. On the other hand, it might be more positively productive to add a third column on the right representing a reasonable modern compromise - NAS, perhaps, culled from Bible Gateway. If there's only room for two, though, I think, on reflection, that I would vote for KJV alongisde NAS. Take care with the title, BTW. The word 'Bible' needs to come first, or people aren't going to find the article. How about 'Bible versions compared'? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:32, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::We might not be able to use the NAS, as it is copyrighted by the Lockman Foundation. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm sure there's a way to handle this...however, the issue of the translations' relative accuracy might lead to original research (as in my "Notes" above). Most critical discussions of translations are new enough to be copyrighted, so probably not useable, and not everyone can read Greek or Latin, so including these older texts might be problematic. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Why not ask Lockman? You're entitled to quote up to 200 words or so with due acknowledgement without permission anyway as 'fair use'. They might be happy to let you use more for nothing if you point out that it's by way of criticism and review, and recommending them as a modern source. Otherwise choose another reasonable, modern one? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Portal ==

Please add <nowiki>[[Category:Book of Worship]]</nowiki> as a Bible category.--[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 14:30, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:Can do! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Truth redirect==
Why is [[Truth]] redirected here?

==Name==
Once again, take care! Greek ''biblos'' doesn't mean 'book' (it's 'papyrus'), and ''la Biblia'' isn't Latin (though ''biblia'' is)! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:22, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
:Found the source...''biblos'' does mean ''book''...but before that it came from ''byblos'', meaning papyrus. ''biblos'' in turn led to the Latin word ''biblia'', and the word ''bible'' came to us from that via the French. The line shall be updated. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:09, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
:The original meaning of biblos is indeed parpyrus, scroll, paper. The usage of the word to mean book occurs a bit later in Koine, although biblion (little book) was more common. Biblia is from the plural of biblion, and comes from the original title of the Greek version of the bible, ta biblia ta hagia --{{polytonic|τὰ βιβλία τὰ ἅγια}} -- meaning "the holy books"
:BTW, the word was ''never'' Byblos -- that was the name of a Phonoecian city that produced papyri, biblos was then derived from the town name with an iota replacing the upsilon. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 08:29, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Is the Bible Inerrant?

2007-04-07T12:10:41Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* What's this article trying to achieve? */

Conservapedia talk:Is the Bible Inerrant?

2007-04-06T20:38:52Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* "Contradictions need to be proved" */

Conservapedia talk:Is the Bible Inerrant?

2007-04-06T20:20:17Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* What's this article trying to achieve? */

Conservapedia talk:Is the Bible Inerrant?

2007-04-06T13:11:13Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* What's this article trying to achieve? */

Conservapedia talk:Is the Bible Inerrant?

2007-04-06T12:27:49Z

NousEpirrhytos:

Conservapedia talk:Is the Bible Inerrant?

2007-04-06T12:22:31Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* This "namespace" is a joke. It claimed people to be scholars who weren't */

Conservapedia talk:Is the Bible Inerrant?

2007-04-05T22:31:57Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* Not to be nit-picky but... */

Conservapedia:Is the Bible Inerrant?

2007-04-05T10:09:19Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* Examples of alleged contradictions */

Biblical fundamentalists, [[Biblical inerrancy|inerrantists]], ultra-orthodox Jews and [[Conservative Christianity|conservative]] [[Christians]] generally claim that the [[Bible]] is the infallible Word of [[God]], and therefore contains no contradictions. Critical scholars, by contrast, note that the Bible is full of contradictions (as do certain online commentators<ref>http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html</ref><ref>http://ffrf.org/books/lfif/?t=contra</ref><ref>http://www.atheists.org/christianity/contradictions.html</ref><ref>http://dim.com/~randl/tcont.htm</ref><ref><http://www.krysstal.com/contradi.html</ref><ref>http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm</ref>), that it cannot consequently be the infallible Word of God, and that (possibly for this reason) it nowhere claims to be (refer to McKinnon, Williams, Vidler & Bezzant; Cupitt; Dawkins;Finkelstein & Silberman;
Robinson; Schonfield; and Spong in the '''Sources''' list below - five of them leading Cambridge University theologians and two of them prominent bishops).
Despite the qualifications and experience of the scholars listed, however, Conservative [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologists]] usually maintain that alleged Bible contradictions are a result of poor [[Bible exegesis]] and that often the Bible's critics are not qualified to perform Bible exegesis (that is to say ''critical interpretation''), which needs to be a multi-disciplinary pursuit. <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/af/calcon.html</ref>

Similarly, while there are a number of Christian apologists who offer Bible exegesis with regard to specific verses to show that they are not in contradiction, <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/index2.html</ref><ref>http://www.inerrancy.org</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/allegeddiscrepancies/</ref><ref>http://www.christian-thinktank.com</ref> other scholars (see list above) argue in print that the biblical acount is far from consistent or reliable, and suggest that traditional Christian interpretation of it is 'beyond the range of credibility' (to quote Bezzant).

== Types of contradictions ==

Claims of contradictions in the Bible may fall into one of a number of common types.

'''Mismatched lists'''

Different authors might each list people, words, or events that do not correspond exactly. However, in most cases, none of the authors claim that their lists are exhaustive, so items missing from one list that are on another list is not in itself a contradiction.

'''Omitted details'''

One author might mention details of an event that another author omits, with the sceptic claiming that if it really happened, both authors would have mentioned it. This "argument from silence" is logically invalid, and usually ignores possible reasons for a given author not mentioning those details, particularly as each author generally had a particular purpose or audience in mind when writing.

'''Differing languages or reference points'''

One author might mention details using one language, clock, calendar, etc., while another might mention the same details using a different language, clock, calendar, etc.

'''Genuine contradictions'''

One author might give details that flatly contradict another. Only careful examination of the texts (independently of personal preconceptions or conjecture) can decide whether or not this is the case.

== Contradictions need to be proved ==

Apologists might often disagree as to how an apparent contradiction is to be best explained, due to nobody knowing for sure what the correct explanation is - whether merely circumstantial or a case of genuine contradiction. However, for a sceptic to ''prove'' the charge of contradiction, the onus is on him to eliminate all possible realistic explanations. The onus is not on the apologist to know which possible explanation is correct. By the same token, however, neither is it legitimate for the apologist to insist that any given explanation ''must'' be correct merely because it fits his or her preconceptions or has been argued by highly selective commentators with similar views. Indeed, the persistent citing of such commentators is liable to lead to an unresolvable 'battle of the commentators' that is likely to leave the general reader (who is in no position to judge the merits of the various commentators) just as nonplussed as before. True, the fact that there is a possible explanation means that the charge of contradiction may fail, depending on the inherent likelihood of the explanation. On the other hand, an unreasonably large number of not-very-likely or highly conjectural explanations may cast doubt on the apologist's case.

== Examples of alleged contradictions ==

The following is a list of the most frequently adduced contradictions, arranged (for clarity and concision) in brief question-and-answer form. Translations are from the KJV. ''The more usually advanced objections are appended in italics, and may be added to, as this article is not locked - though long semantic 'wriggles' may not redound to the entire credit of the poster's argument.''

*How long did it take God to create the world?
::Genesis 1: Six days (Hebrew ''yom'')
::Genesis 2: One day (Hebrew ''yom'')
:::''Objection: The context indicates that the word ''yom'' in chapter 2 is used in the sense of "when", as many translations have it.''
::::Counter-objection: Linguistic studies do not support the use of "when" to translate ''yom''.

*Was man created before or after the animals?
::Genesis 1:24-6: After the animals
::Genesis 2:7,19: Before the animals
:::''Objection 1: Unlike chapter 1, with its numbered days, chapter 2 is not intended as a chronological account.''
::::Counter-objection: Since verse 7 comes well before verse 19, it is clear that man came before the animals. Additionally, Gen 2:18 states specifically that the animals were created because God felt it was not right for man to be alone.
:::''Objection 2: At least one modern translation (NIV) replaces the word 'formed' with 'had formed', (showing that the animals had already been created).
::::Counter-objection: That is a clear mistranslation of the Hebrew verb, whose tense and mood is imperfect ('formed', 'was forming'), not pluperfect ('had formed').[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Gen&chapter=2&verse=19&version=KJV#19]
:::::''Counter-counter objection: Some sources suggest - on the basis of seeing chapter 2 as ''not'' a contradiction of chapter 2, but as part of its context - that it is appropriate to treat the word as a pluperfect. <ref>See [http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html|Creation Account, Times Two], by J. P. Holding</ref>''
::::::Counter-counter-counter-objection: Which is, of course, an entirely circular argument, and in violation of Semitic linguistics!

*How long is a day as far as God is concerned, then?
::Genesis 1: An evening and morning
::II Peter 3:8: A thousand years

* Does God know the hearts of men?
::Psalm 139:2,3 Acts 1:24: Yes
::Genesis 22:12, Deuteronomy 8:2, 13:3: Evidently not

*How many of each kind of living creature did God tell Noah to take into the Ark?
::Genesis 6:19: One pair
::Genesis 7:2: Seven pairs of birds and ‘clean’ creatures, and one pair of the rest
:::''Objection: It is common for the Bible writers to give an overview initially, and more detail later.''
::::Counter-objection: Given that there are far more clean than unclean animals, it would seem that the predominant seven pairs would be given in an overview (absent, of course, the usage of any phrase meaning "at least two").

* Is God is warlike?
::Exodus 15:3: Yes
::I Corinthians 14:33: No

* Is God's anger fierce and long-lasting?
::Jeremiah 17:4: Yes
::Psalm 30:5: No

*On which mountain did Moses receive the Ten Commandments?
::Exodus 3: Horeb
::Exodus 19: Sinai
:::''Objection: They are both the same mountain.''
::::Counter-objection: The Biblical text indicates that Horeb was the proper name of the mountain, and that the mountain was located in the Sinai desert.

*Are we punished for our parents' sins?
::Exodus 20:5: Yes
::Ezekiel 18:20: No

*Is it right to kill?
::Exodus 20:13: No
::I Samuel 15:2,3,7,8: Emphatically yes
:::''Objection: Traditionally, 'Thou shalt not kill' was simply taken to mean 'Thou shalt not kill ''Jews''.
::::Comment: the word should actually be "murder" not kill.

* Does God require burnt offerings and sacrifices?
::Exodus 29:36, 29:18, Leviticus 1:9: Yes
::Isaiah 1,11-14: No

*Did David have thirty companions, or thirty-seven?
::II Samuel 23:24: Thirty [all named and listed]
::II Samuel 23:39: Thirty-seven in all

*How many stables did Solomon have for his horses?
::I Kings 4:26: Forty thousand
::II Chronicles 9:25: Four thousand
:::''Objection: This one is probably a copyist error.''<ref>[http://www.tektonics.org/af/copyisterrors.html Copyist Errors and Estimations], by J. P. Holding.</ref>
::::Non-objection: The Bible is thus not infallible.

*How many overseers did Solomon have?
::I Kings 9:23: 550
::II Chronicles 8:10: 250

*Who was the mother of Abijah?
::II Chronicles 11:20: Maachah the daughter of Absalom
::II Chronicles 13:2: Michaiah the daughter of Uriel

*At what age did Ahaziah come to the throne?
::II Kings 8:26: 22
::II Chronicles 22:2: 42

*Who succeeded King Josiah?
::II Chronicles 36:1: Jehoahaz
::Jeremiah 22:11: Shallum

*At what age did Jehoiachin come to the throne?
::II Kings 24:8: Eighteen
::II Chronicles 36:9: Eight

*Can God be seen?
::Genesis 32:30: Yes
::Exodus 33:11: Yes
::John 1:18: No, not at any time

*Is God is to be found by those who seek him?
::Proverbs 8:17: Yes
::Proverbs 1:28: No

*Is God mercfiul, or merciless?
::Jeremiah 13:14: Merciless
::I Samuel 15:13: Merciless
:: James 5:11: Very pitiful, and of tender mercy

*Does God tempt men, or not?
:Genesis 22:1: Yes
:James 1:13: No

*Can the Sun and Moon ever appear together in the sky at the same time
::Joshua 10:12: Yes.
::Psalm 136:8-9 No.
::Genesis 1:16: No.
:::''Objection: There is no contradiction: the last two references are to 'ruling', not 'appearing'.''
::::Non-objection: The parallelism in the language means that the Moon plays the same role with respect to "night" as the Sun plays with respect to "day.''

*Should one answer a fool?
::Proverbs 26:4: No.
::Proverbs 26:5: Yes.
:::''Objection: Taken together, the two verses mean, 'It is unwise to argue with a fool at his own level and recognize his own foolish suppositions, but it is good sometimes to refute him soundly, lest his foolishness seem to be confirmed by your silence.'<ref>[http://www.tektonics.org/lp/proverbsfool.html I Pity the Fool I Answer], by J. P. Holding.</ref>
::::But the text [http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Pro&chapter=26&verse=4&version=KJV#4] does not actually say this.

*Is there an afterlife?
::Luke 16:22-23: Yes.
::Ecclesiastes 9:5: No.
:::''Objection: Ecclesiastes is merely recounting Solomon's opinion; the closing words in 12:9-14 show that the purpose of the chapter is to portray Solomon as a wise leader, and that not everything in it is should necessarily be taken as true.''
::::Non-objection: thus we see the value of allegory over inerrant literal truth.

*Which of the two genealogies of Jesus is right – Matthew’s or Luke’s (both of them traced through the man who was supposedly not Jesus’ father in the first place)?
::Impossible to say: they are totally incompatible
:::''Objection 1: One of them is traced through Mary, his mother.<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2875/ The Virginal Conception of Christ], by Jonathan Sarfati.</ref>
::::Counter-objection: Both of them are specifically traced through Joseph, as the texts themselves make clear.''
:::::''Counter-counter-objection: Restating the claim is not a counter-objection.''
:::''Objection 2: One is traced through Joseph's father, the other through his step-father.
::::Counter-objection: The text doesn't say so.

*Who was Joseph's father, then?
::Matthew 1:16: Jacob
::Luke 3:23: Heli
:::''Objection: This is merely the previous objection restated.''

*Who visited Jesus in his crib?
::Matthew: Astrologers
::Mark: Not mentioned (no birth story)
::Luke: Shepherds
::John: Not mentioned (no birth story)
:::''Objection: Matthew does not say that the magi visited Jesus in the crib. The "contradiction" is imaginary.''
::::Counter-objection: The texts states 'where the young child was'.

*Did Jesus tell his disciples to go out with or without a stick?
::Matthew 10:10: Without a stick
::Mark 6:8: With a stick
::Luke 9:3: Without a stick
::John: Not mentioned
:::''Objection: In Matthew and Luke, Jesus is telling his disciples not to go and get a staff. In Mark, Jesus is saying that they can take with them the staff that they already have. ''<ref>[http://www.christian-thinktank.com/nostaff.html Good question... Well, did Jesus tell them to take a staff or not? Another contradiction?!], by Glenn Miller.</ref>
::::Counter-objection: The text does not say so.

*Where was the Sermon on the Mount delivered?
::Matthew: On a hill
::Mark: Not mentioned
::Luke: At the bottom of a hill
::John: Not mentioned
:::''Objection: Luke is usually translated as "on a level place", not "on a plain". He could therefore be referring to a level place on a hill.''
::::Counter-objection: The text [http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Luk/Luk006.html#12] says 'He went out into a mountain [v.12]... ''came down'' [v.17]... and stood in the plain' [my italics].

*Where in each gospel does Jesus make the all-important claim 'I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me'?
::Matthew: Not mentioned
::Mark: Not mentioned
::Luke: Not mentioned
::John: 14:6
:::''Objection: How is this a contradiction if only one writer mentions it?''
::::Counter-objection: Evidently either Matthew, Mark and Luke had never heard of it, or else they didn't think it worth mentioning, so it can't have been 'all-important'.

*Was Jesus a bringer of peace?
::John 14:27: Yes
::Matthew 10:34: No

*Who was present at the Crucifixion?
::Matthew: Mary of Magdala, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, the mother of the sons of Zebedee and other women
::Mark: Mary of Magdala, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, Salome and other women
::Luke: His friends, and the women who had accompanied him from Galilee
::John: His mother, her sister, Mary wife of Clopas and Mary of Magdala
:::''Objection: Mentioning only some of the people present does not preclude others being present.''

*What were Jesus’ last words on the cross?
::Matthew: ‘My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?’ ''Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?''
::Mark: ‘My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?’ ''Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?''
::Luke: ‘Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit.’
::John: ‘It is finished.’
:::''Objection: In most cases, the writers do ''not'' indicate that the words they quote were the ''last'' words.''
::::Counter-objection: But they are the last words that they report. Additionally, both Matthew and Mark use Aramaic, which appears more likely to have been used, and which contains a pun on the names of God and Elias.

*How did Judas die?
::Acts 1:18: He fell down and burst asunder
::Matt. 27:5: He hanged himself
:::''Objection: Neither account excludes the other. He hanged himself, and his body fell down and burst asunder.''
::::Counter-objection: Neither account suggests that ''both'' happened.

*Who was the first to reach the tomb on the Sunday morning?
::Matthew: Mary of Magdala and ‘the other Mary’
::Mark: Mary of Magdala, Mary the mother of James, and Salome
::Luke: Mary of Magdala, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James
::John: Mary of Magdala
:::''Objection: None of the authors claim to be listing everybody. None say that the others were ''not'' there.''

*Whom did they find in the tomb?
::Matthew: An angel
::Mark: A youth
::Luke: Two men in dazzling garments
::John: Two angels
:::''Objection: Mentioning one does not preclude there being two. Otherwise, they could all be different descriptions of the same beings.''

*What message did he/they deliver?
::Matthew: That Jesus was going on to Galilee, where they would see him
::Mark: That Jesus was going on to Galilee, where they would see him
::Luke: To remember what he had said
::John: That he was now ascending to the Father

*When did Jesus say he would return?
::Matthew:(a) After three days
:::(b) At some unspecifiable future time
::Mark: (a) After three days
:::(b) At some unspecifiable future time
::Luke:(a) After three days
:::(b) At some unspecifiable future time
::John: Unspecified

*Did those with Saul Paul at his conversion hear a voice?
::Acts 9:7: Yes
::Acts 22:9: No

*Who ever ascended into heaven?
::II Kings 2:11: Elijah
::John 3:13: Only the Son of Man

*Does God approve of observing the Sabbath, or not?
::Exodus 20:10: Yes
::Isaiah 1:13: No
:::''Objection: "The reason why the Sabbath keeping and other observances of the Israelites were not acceptable to God, is set forth by Isaiah, in a subsequent verse, thus: 'Your hands are full of blood.'"<ref>John W. Haley, ''Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible'', 1874.</ref>
::::Counter-objection: The answer seems to be 'Only by those with no blood on their hands', then. Hmm!

*Is God ominpresent and omniscient?
::Psalm 139:7-10, Proverbs 15:3, Job 34:22,21: Yes
::Genesis 18:20-21: No

*Does God change?
::Malachi 3:6: No
::James 1:17: Yes

*Are the followers of Christ obliged to keep the whole of the Jewish Law (i.e. all 613 positive and negative provisions of it)?
::Matthew 5:17-18 (Jesus): Yes
::Romans 6:15 (Paul): No

*Is salvation dependent on faith, or or on deeds?
::Romans 3:28: By faith without deeds
::James 2:24: By deeds, and not just by faith

*Should good deeds be done publicly?
::Matthew 5:16: Yes
::Matt 6:3-4: No

== Notes ==

<references />

==Sources==

* Cruden, A., ''Complete Concordance to the Old and New Testaments'' (Lutterworth, 1930)
* Cupitt, D., ''The Sea of Faith'' (BBC, 1984)
* Dawkins, Prof. R., ''The God Delusion'' (Bantam, 2006)
* Finkelstein, I. & Silberman, N.I., ''The Bible Unearthed'' (Touchstone, 2002)
* ''The Holy Bible'' (King James Version)
* McKinnon, Prof. D.M, Williams, H., Vidler, Dean A.R. & Bezzant, Dean J.S., ''Objections to Christian Belief'' (Constable, 1963)
* ''The New English Bible'' (Oxford & Cambridge University Presses, 1970)
* ''The New Jerusalem Bible'' (Darton, Longman & Todd, 1990)
* Peake, A.S., ''Commentary on the Bible'' (Nelson, 1962)
* Robinson, Bishop J.A.T., ''Honest to God'' (SCM, 1963)
* Schonfield, Dr. H.J., ''The Passover Plot'' (Hutchinson, 1965)
* Schonfield, Dr. H.J., ''Those Incredible Christians'' (Geis/Bantam, 1968)
* Spong, Bishop J.S., ''Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism'' (HarperSanFrancisco, 1991)
* Young, R., ''Analytical Concordance to the Holy Bible'' (Lutterworth, 1939)

Conservapedia talk:Is the Bible Inerrant?

2007-04-04T22:45:06Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* Not to be nit-picky but... */

Creation story

2007-04-04T22:36:18Z

NousEpirrhytos:

According to the first chapter of the [[Bible]]'s book of [[Genesis]], God (in the form of the plural ''Elohim'') created the world in six days ([[Hebrew]] ''yom''), before resting on the seventh - light and darkness on the first day, sky and sea on the second, earth and plants on the third, sun, moon and stars on the fourth, fishes and birds on the fifth, animals and finally man on the sixth.

According to chapter two, however, creation appears to take only one day (''yom'', cf verse 4), with man apparently being created before the plants have grown, and most certainly ''before'' the animals are created as according to the text, God, having created man, specifically says that he is creating them so that the man should not be alone.

Most of the world's academic Bible scholars explain {{fact}} this apparent [[Alleged Bible contradictions|contradiction]] by suggesting that the two chapters in fact originated as two quite separate accounts. Fundamentalist Conservative commentators, however, typically insist (usually without advancing any particular evidence) {{fact}} that chapter two is not intended as a chronological account, and some are even prepared to argue (on the basis of the NIV version) that the word 'formed' in verse 19 can legitimately be read as 'had formed', notwithstanding the fact that the Hebrew original is clearly in the imperfect tense/mood ('formed', 'was forming') not the pluperfect ('had formed').[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Gen&chapter=2&verse=19&version=KJV#19]

==Sources==

* Cruden, A., ''Complete Concordance to the Old and New Testaments'' (Lutterworth, 1930)
* ''The Holy Bible'' (King James Version)
* ''The New English Bible'' (Oxford & Cambridge University Presses, 1970)
* ''The New Jerusalem Bible'' (Darton, Longman & Todd, 1990)
* Peake, A.S., ''Commentary on the Bible'' (Nelson, 1962)
* Young, R., ''Analytical Concordance to the Holy Bible'' (Lutterworth, 1939)

Creation story

2007-04-04T22:13:45Z

NousEpirrhytos:

According to the first chapter of the [[Bible]]'s book of [[Genesis]], God (in the form of the plural ''Elohim'') created the world in six days ([[Hebrew]] ''yom''), before resting on the seventh - light and darkness on the first day, sky and sea on the second, earth and plants on the third, sun, moon and stars on the fourth, fishes and birds on the fifth, animals and finally man on the sixth.

According to chapter two, however, creation appears to take only one day (''yom'', cf verse 4), with man apparently being created before the plants have grown, and most certainly ''before'' the animals are created as according to the text, God, having created man, specifically says that he is creating them so that the man should not be alone.

Most of the world's academic Bible scholars explain this apparent [[Alleged Bible contradictions|contradiction]] by suggesting that the two chapters in fact originated as two quite separate accounts. Fundamentalist Conservative commentators, however, typically insist (usually without advancing any particular evidence) that chapter two is not intended as a chronological account, and some are even prepared to argue (on the basis of the NIV version) that the word 'formed' in verse 19 can legitimately be read as 'had formed', notwithstanding the fact that the Hebrew original is clearly in the imperfect tense/mood ('formed', 'was forming') not a pluperfect one ('had formed').[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Gen&chapter=2&verse=19&version=KJV#19]

==Sources==

* Cruden, A., ''Complete Concordance to the Old and New Testaments'' (Lutterworth, 1930)
* ''The Holy Bible'' (King James Version)
* ''The New English Bible'' (Oxford & Cambridge University Presses, 1970)
* ''The New Jerusalem Bible'' (Darton, Longman & Todd, 1990)
* Peake, A.S., ''Commentary on the Bible'' (Nelson, 1962)
* Young, R., ''Analytical Concordance to the Holy Bible'' (Lutterworth, 1939)

Creation story

2007-04-04T22:13:04Z

NousEpirrhytos:

According to the first chapter of the [[Bible]]'s book of [[Genesis]], God (in the form of the plural ''Elohim'') created the world in six days ([[Hebrew]] ''yom''), before resting on the seventh - light and darkness on the first day, sky and sea on the second, earth and plants on the third, sun, moon and stars on the fourth, fishes and birds on the fifth, animals and finally man on the sixth.

According to chapter two, however, creation appears to take only one day (''yom'', cf verse 4), with man apparently being created before the plants have grown, and most certainly ''before'' the animals are created as according to the text, God, having created man, specifically says that he is creating them so that the man should not be alone.

Most of the world's academic Bible scholars explain this apparent [[Alleged Bible contradictions|contradiction]] by suggesting that the two chapters in fact originated as two quite separate accounts. Fundamentalist Conservative commentators, however, usually insist (usually without advancing any particular evidence) that chapter two is not intended as a chronological account, and some are even prepared to argue (on the basis of the NIV version) that the word 'formed' in verse 19 can legitimately be read as 'had formed', notwithstanding the fact that the Hebrew original is clearly in the imperfect tense/mood ('formed', 'was forming') not a pluperfect one ('had formed').[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Gen&chapter=2&verse=19&version=KJV#19]

==Sources==

* Cruden, A., ''Complete Concordance to the Old and New Testaments'' (Lutterworth, 1930)
* ''The Holy Bible'' (King James Version)
* ''The New English Bible'' (Oxford & Cambridge University Presses, 1970)
* ''The New Jerusalem Bible'' (Darton, Longman & Todd, 1990)
* Peake, A.S., ''Commentary on the Bible'' (Nelson, 1962)
* Young, R., ''Analytical Concordance to the Holy Bible'' (Lutterworth, 1939)

Talk:Genesis

2007-04-04T21:50:24Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* The Fourth Day */

The formatting for the Bible verses should probably be condensed into paragraph form.

That's a good idea. It is too long in the current formatting

Do you need the full text rather than just a link to a [http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen001.html source]? If you are going to have the full text, might as well make another namespace and let people link there. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:11, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

It's far from the full text, if you know the Bible at all! Its just the most quoted and relevant passage from the book!--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 19:14, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Serpent versus Satan==
I clarified that the "serpent" in the Garden of Eden is not universally thought to have been Satan. I am Christian and I was taught that the serpent probably wasn't Satan (because God cursed all serpents because of the serpent's role in Genesis, and why would God curse an entire species of animals for the actions of Satan? Even if Satan "posessed" the creature, could an animal have possibly resisted?). In any event, in the Jewish tradition, the serpent is also just a serpent and not Satan. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 00:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:You didn't clarify anything. First, I've seen your edits; you like to make a few word aditions or detractions here and there in various articles, but you never make these corrections flow with the rest of the body. The results just make the whole look silly. Second, Genesis 3:15 is clear that God wasn't cursing a snake; the word ''serpent'' is just another title for Satan. And snakes don't talk to people and convince them to grab some fruit, much less cause people do disobey God. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Please try again. In particular, read the surrounding passages when you try to understand the Bible. Genesis 3:14, clearly says:

:::And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.

::(emphasis added) Serpents walked on four legs before God cursed them. The notion that they no longer talk is irrelevant. In the Garden they did. That lions are no longer herbivores doesn't mean they weren't that way in the Garden. I understand that you may not interpret the Bible literally, but I do. Don't attack me for it.

::I should add, Satan is called "serpent" in the New Testament. No where in the Old Testament is he called that, outside of that particular reading of Genesis. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 11:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Then which of the 2700 species of serpent was cursed? Snakes don't talk people into disobeying God; Satan does. This is about Genesis; not about what people think regarding the New Testament. Is there any sentence within the Book of Genesis which states "believed by many in the Christian tradition to have been Satan in the form of a serpent"? Is there anywhere in the entire Old Testament which states "authors of the New Testament believe..."? Did Moses write "I Believe Jesus to have been..."? The answer is no. That means you can knock off your strange edits. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:35, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Is there anything in the Garden of Eden account of Genesis that suggests the serpent is Satan other than your say so? Do you think the authors simply forgot to mention Satan's name? Genesis does *NOT* identify that serpent as Satan. You do. My religion rteaches me that the Bible is the literal word of God handed down to me. It does not teach me that Karajou's non-literal interpretation of the Bible has any weight at all. Why you are so hostile to me because I choose to read the Bible literally and make very fair edits idetifying (a) what the Bible actually says ("serpent") and (b) how many, but not all, Christians interpret that ("serpent is Satan") is beyond me. If you strive for accuracy and do not want extra-biblical material in the text of the article, then the sentence should read "a serpent" without any reference to Satan. I merely added the (extra-Biblical, but correct) parenthetical that many Christians believe the serpent to be Satan because so many Chriatians do thoughtlessly accept that interpretation, even though Genesis doesn't expressly say that. I didn't mean to offend you, but your article has strayed into your personal interpretation of the Bible, and away from what the Bible literally says.

:::::That's what you should have done in the first place. The hostility was the other way around, and it was based on you getting very close to getting booted from the site because you chose to include nonsense, the nonsense being the extra-Biblical thing you claim is true, and your sheer demand...DEMAND...that it be included, instead of working with the rest of us as to the best way to show it. I'm not going to tolerate any book of the Bible being made to look silly. Either work with us in that regard or leave. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:23, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Ah, but the Bible is only meant to be taken literally when I want it to be! (excuse my irony!) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:34, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::No...it's to be taken for what it is. It's not subject to individual interpretations. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Isn't part of the protestant reformation about allowing individual interpretations? If not, who's interpretation is correct? Lutheran? Roman Catholic? Eastern Orthodox? Methodist? Presbyterian? Calvinism? Any one of the thousands of congregational churches? To say that there is only one correct interpretation (yours) is a view that most Christians across the world would dispute. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:49, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::No, the hostility started with you, Karajou. I added something. I explained why. Evidently, you disagreed and so you (a) changed it back and then (b) insulted my contributions generally, without any provocation save that you didn't care for my post. Also evidently, you consider "working with you" to be "reading your mind" as no one here "pre-clears" their edits with you (I wonder, with whom do you pre-clear your edits before making them?). I didn't even think my post was at all controversial. Why? (A) The Bible says "serpent" not Satan (B) Many (though not all) Christians believe that the "serpent" was really Satan. Those are two statements of fact, and so how noting those two facts makes Genesis look "silly" is beyond me. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 19:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::If you intend to continue this fight, then I'm going to boot you from the site. Last warning. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:41, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::If that's the only arrow in your quiver, then I already won the fight. Still, I guess you can at least get the last word.[[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 20:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure if this debate is over, but as one who believes that the serpent was (or was inhabited by) Satan, (and not "thoughtlessly"), I have to support JesusSaves in arguing that the article should actually say what Genesis says, i.e. referring to "serpent", not "Satan", although it being Satan can (should?) be in parenthesis, along the line of JesusSaves' edit. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:45, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with you, and I would agree with him, but when he added a line refering to a New Testament difference when Genesis should stand on it's own, and kept demanding to put it back in when removed, then wanting to argue with me about it without even bothering to work together to create the best article possible on the subject...a line has to be drawn somewhere. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:09, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

==Changes==
First and foremost, this article is about the book of Genesis. It has to describe Genesis; it has to describe the Creation, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, Sodom, Abraham, etc. It cannot open up with with a two-sentence description, then go into a spurious theory about unidentified authors named for letters. And it also does not need to repeat the entire book word for word...only selected verses need to be quoted. What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:24, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Of course! An encylopedia needs to refer, not to quote. But if it refers to one story, then it has to refer to all of them. The authorial theories that most of the rest of the world subscribes to also need a section, complete with references, without using loaded words such as 'spurious' about them and assuming that people aren't adult enough to consider them for themselves. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:30, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

==Archaeological notes==
There is a book entitled Halley's Bible Handbook, by Dr. Henry M. Halley, and when he's telling the story of Genesis he has "archaeological notes" between Biblical lines, i.e. when he tells of the Tower of Babel he has the remains of a ziggurat which has been claimed by archaeologists as the Tower itself, and this is described in sort of a sideline. The same thing could happen here, like in photos that illustrate the article, and the relevent info added to the pics. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:In that case it would need to use the latest research, as represented by Finkelstein and Silberman's ''The Bible Unearthed'' (Touchstone, 2002). --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:26, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Good resources are the norm. I generally don't like the latest ones, because a lot of them are very clear in their bias against the Bible. But I won't close them off completely either. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:06, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Petrus' and my edits ==

Despite agreeing on the [[Talk:Biblical creation account|Biblical creation account talk page]] that a particular view should not be put as though it is the correct one, Petrus has done just that in this article. I have rewritten (and moved) that for what it is; a particular view.

However, I removed completely the claim that "day" ("''yom''") in Genesis 2:4 refers to a single 24-hour day. I'd like some evidence that people (other than Petrus) do actually claim this. I've heard many times the almost-opposite argument that as Genesis 2:4 uses ''yom'' to refer to a long period of time, the days of Genesis 1 must also be long periods of time. I don't recall ever hearing anyone claim that ''yom'' in Genesis 2:4 must be a 24-hour day.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:In ancient Hebrew, yom meant day. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:27, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==needless revert==
I reverted Petrus' change from
* ''One of these claimed contradictions is that chapter 2 '''appears to describe''' the creation of animals after the creation of Adam''
to
* ''One of these claimed contradictions is that chapter 2 '''describes''' the creation of animals after the creation of Adam''
His edit note was, "'''describes', not 'appears to describe': we're talking linguistic fact here, not opinion''".

However, the sentence in the article is talking about the meaning of the narrative, not the meaning of the words. The ''words'' "cats" and "dogs" in the sentence, "it's raining cats and dogs" mean feline and canine creatures, but the phrase as a whole has the ''meaning'' that its raining heavily, not that felines and canines are falling from the clouds. Similarly, if we have a sentence saying, "''Mrs. Smith sent her son to Melbourne High School''", and later another sentence saying, "Mrs. Smith breast fed her son", that doesn't mean that she did this after sending him to high school. Whether these examples are accurate analogues of the passage in question or not is beside the point. The point is that claiming that the narrative has a particular meaning with the justification that the phrase ''in isolation'' has a particular meaning, when others dispute that one follows from the other, is to put a particular point of view as if it's a fact.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:56, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, yes. Wonderful wriggle! My edit referred to the literal meaning of the words - which I thought people like you were rather keen on - rather than their over-all interpretation. I have now made that clear. (What you mean, of course, is that you don't like the implications of what the text actually says: I can't say I blame you.) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:21, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::You thought wrong (as I find so often with anti-creationists; they frequently have little idea of the view that they so readily disparage). Creationists are "keen on" what the author meant. The author did not always mean things to be taken literally (think metaphors, parables, etc.). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:07, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:Except, of course, in chapter one! ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:45, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::No, not except chapter 1. The same ''principle'' applies there, but it doesn't contain any (that I can think of) metaphors, etc. Chapter 1 was to be understood as actual history. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:48, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hmm! Uncanny how this [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html] page seems to have anticipated virtually all your arguments! ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Not uncanny at all. This sort of debate has been going on for centuries. I have a (facsimile reproduction of a) copy of a book ''answering'' alleged contradictions, that was published in 1874! This was not reprinted as a curiosity, but because the alleged contradictions that it answers are still being wheeled out by bibliosceptics today! So the site didn't ''anticipate'' the answers; it was trying to "poison the well" in advance of those answers. I notice that its dismissals of the answers are are weak as water. For example, its response to "That is to be taken metaphorically" merely ridicules those giving that answer, and totally ignores that Bible-believers accept that there is metaphor in the Bible, but that it can be readily identified, and they don't give this answer where metaphor is not involved. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:03, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:'It's literal - except why I say so'? Sure - "When I use a word... it means just what I choose it to mean." (Humpty Dumpty) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:06, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::That's ''not'' what I said, not what I meant, and not what it amounts to. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:37, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Removed the following edit:
:''By the most optimistic estimates, then, nothing in Genesis was written less than a thousand years after the events it attempts to describe, which isn't to say the authors may not have drawn on earlier texts. After all, no works from the Roman period survive in the authors' handwriting, yet the authenticity of, say, the letters of Cicero is rarely disputed. However, the most recent historical and archeological research reported and collated by Finkelstein and Silberman, among others, suggests that the Torah is unlikely to have been written much before the 7th century BC.''

This line of reasoning was applied beginning in the mid-1800s, and was thoroughly disproved. The editor also states that Cicero is undisputed despite having no written evidence in the author's handwriting, yet he tries to disprove Genesis as being no older than the 7th century B.C., and this based on revisionist works by Finkelstein and Silberman. This is evidence of double-standards. If one can accept Cicero based on no evidence, then one can accept the Bible as being written in a far older time than the 7th century B.C....unless the editor has a personal dislike for the Bible, as does Finkelstein and Silberman. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:10, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Can you find me ''one'' interdisciplinary biblical scholar of note who is not in the employ of an evangelical or evangelically-related institution who believes the Bible to have been written any earlier than 722 BCE? Why are you afraid to admit that the bible is only 2700 years old? In fact, if you knew anything about linguistics, you'd know that Hebrew writing does not go back much farther than that (to 1000 BCE), and if the bible had been written, say, 3500 years ago the language would be considerably different, in fact, it would have bordered on proto-Semitic. Additionally, it would have been written in a script unknown to the Jews themselves as they did not develop their first alphabet, borrowing from the Phonecians, until late in the 11th century BCE. (Thus we see just one of the benefits of ''true'' scholarship). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:26, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Question on text ==

It's been a while since I read the text, but why does Noah place a curse on Canaan after Ham sees him naked? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:13, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:The account doesn't spell it out. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:45, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::According to the narrative, Noah was in a drunken slumber - and naked - when Ham walked into his tent (Gen 6:22). Ham then told his brothers about it, who then covered Noah with a blanket in such a manner as not to see his nakedness (Gen 6:23). Then Noah awoke, and knew what Ham had done to him (Gen 6:24), and pronounced a curse, specifying that Canaan would be a servant of servants to his brethren (Gen 6:25).
::Ham must have done something obvious to Noah as to allow Noah to "know about it" after he awoke, as he definately had more than a hangover. Merely telling the brothers that Dad's naked wasn't enough, and some writers speculated was that Ham took advantage of his father's nakedness and quite possibly raped him, then boasted about it, hence the anger from Noah at knowing what Ham done. As to the curse of Canaan...the sons of Ham, according to the Table of Nations in Genesis 10, populated the southern Middle East, Egypt, and Africa. Africans for generations have been kept in a servile manner in one form or another, including American slavery, South African apartied, the current crisis in the Sudan, and others. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:12, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The problem with that last part is that I don't think there's any correlation between Canaan and Africans. Africans likely descended from Cush, another of Ham's sons, but not from Canaan, the one with the curse. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:19, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Africans did what? This is too funny. More accurate would be that Cush decended from Africans (but so did we all). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:29, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==This is supposed to be about the Book of Genesis==
This is not an article to spout off every crank theory as to why Genesis should be doubted. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:56, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Nor, of course, is it an article to spout off every crank theory as to why Genesis should be believed. It should reflect the research - ''all'' of it. But I see that it has now been locked, presumably in order to prevent that. And so Conservapedia moves yet further down the inevitable path of self-discreditation... --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I've seen too many edits from people doing their best to discredit the Bible, but all they have is opinion, and not science. The "letters" theory within the "Authorship" subheading is the only one allowed here, as it is this theory that nearly all debunkers have claimed as evidence against Genesis; this theory was also thoroughly debunked as being the opinions of the men who postulated it. They had no hard evidence backing up their claims. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:00, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::What precisely is your definition of science?
::::The "letters theory"? You mean the Documentary Hypothesis? Not really debunked, just changed 'round a bit. ''Real'' bible scholars know that the bible was written by several authors with several purposes. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It can't reflect ''all'' the research; it has to be selective and only reflect the most relevant and accurate research. Of course there will still be disputes about what qualifies, but a lot of the "research" is not worth including. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Why? Which research is not acceptable? Is research from apologists acceptable? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== The Fourth Day ==
With the fourth day there is a problem. Either the light on the first day is the Sun, as I was always taught, and the Sun was then placed in the sky on the fourth day. Which seems illogical. Or the Sun was created after the plants on the forth day. Which is impossible.
Then I learned in science that on the early Earth, the atmosphere was cloudy with heavy gases like methane and ammonia. When the plants began to form they filtered the atmosphere and the Sun appeared in the sky. So the verse then makes sense.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 09:38, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:I don't see a problem at all. The Bible says that God created light on the first day, and the Sun on the fourth day, contrary to what you were taught. Why does that seem illogical, and why is it impossible for the Sun to be created 24 hours after the plants?
:What you learnt in science class is a non-biblical view, so trying to mesh that with the biblical view is illogical. It's quite believable that the plants survived for 24 hours without the sun, especially given that there was another (temporary) source of light. But how did the plants survive without the sun for however long it took them to filter the atmosphere?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:14, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::I enjoyed your discussion. [[User:Order]] 5 April, 12:40 (AEST)

:Phil, based on the "hands" argument you raised on the Alleged Bible contradictions page, I humbly suggest you steer clear of using words like logical or illogical. "...why is it impossible for the Sun to be created 24 hours after the plants?" -- ever heard of photosynthesis? Hey, if you were right above that yom could mean a long, indeterminate period (a "when") why are you insisting on a 24 hour day? Oh, what about Genesis 2, the plants came after Adam in that one. What logic are you searching for or professing to be expert in? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Genesis

2007-04-04T21:43:06Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* This is supposed to be about the Book of Genesis */

Talk:Genesis

2007-04-04T21:29:08Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* Question on text */

The formatting for the Bible verses should probably be condensed into paragraph form.

That's a good idea. It is too long in the current formatting

Do you need the full text rather than just a link to a [http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen001.html source]? If you are going to have the full text, might as well make another namespace and let people link there. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:11, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

It's far from the full text, if you know the Bible at all! Its just the most quoted and relevant passage from the book!--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 19:14, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Serpent versus Satan==
I clarified that the "serpent" in the Garden of Eden is not universally thought to have been Satan. I am Christian and I was taught that the serpent probably wasn't Satan (because God cursed all serpents because of the serpent's role in Genesis, and why would God curse an entire species of animals for the actions of Satan? Even if Satan "posessed" the creature, could an animal have possibly resisted?). In any event, in the Jewish tradition, the serpent is also just a serpent and not Satan. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 00:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:You didn't clarify anything. First, I've seen your edits; you like to make a few word aditions or detractions here and there in various articles, but you never make these corrections flow with the rest of the body. The results just make the whole look silly. Second, Genesis 3:15 is clear that God wasn't cursing a snake; the word ''serpent'' is just another title for Satan. And snakes don't talk to people and convince them to grab some fruit, much less cause people do disobey God. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Please try again. In particular, read the surrounding passages when you try to understand the Bible. Genesis 3:14, clearly says:

:::And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.

::(emphasis added) Serpents walked on four legs before God cursed them. The notion that they no longer talk is irrelevant. In the Garden they did. That lions are no longer herbivores doesn't mean they weren't that way in the Garden. I understand that you may not interpret the Bible literally, but I do. Don't attack me for it.

::I should add, Satan is called "serpent" in the New Testament. No where in the Old Testament is he called that, outside of that particular reading of Genesis. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 11:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Then which of the 2700 species of serpent was cursed? Snakes don't talk people into disobeying God; Satan does. This is about Genesis; not about what people think regarding the New Testament. Is there any sentence within the Book of Genesis which states "believed by many in the Christian tradition to have been Satan in the form of a serpent"? Is there anywhere in the entire Old Testament which states "authors of the New Testament believe..."? Did Moses write "I Believe Jesus to have been..."? The answer is no. That means you can knock off your strange edits. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:35, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Is there anything in the Garden of Eden account of Genesis that suggests the serpent is Satan other than your say so? Do you think the authors simply forgot to mention Satan's name? Genesis does *NOT* identify that serpent as Satan. You do. My religion rteaches me that the Bible is the literal word of God handed down to me. It does not teach me that Karajou's non-literal interpretation of the Bible has any weight at all. Why you are so hostile to me because I choose to read the Bible literally and make very fair edits idetifying (a) what the Bible actually says ("serpent") and (b) how many, but not all, Christians interpret that ("serpent is Satan") is beyond me. If you strive for accuracy and do not want extra-biblical material in the text of the article, then the sentence should read "a serpent" without any reference to Satan. I merely added the (extra-Biblical, but correct) parenthetical that many Christians believe the serpent to be Satan because so many Chriatians do thoughtlessly accept that interpretation, even though Genesis doesn't expressly say that. I didn't mean to offend you, but your article has strayed into your personal interpretation of the Bible, and away from what the Bible literally says.

:::::That's what you should have done in the first place. The hostility was the other way around, and it was based on you getting very close to getting booted from the site because you chose to include nonsense, the nonsense being the extra-Biblical thing you claim is true, and your sheer demand...DEMAND...that it be included, instead of working with the rest of us as to the best way to show it. I'm not going to tolerate any book of the Bible being made to look silly. Either work with us in that regard or leave. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:23, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Ah, but the Bible is only meant to be taken literally when I want it to be! (excuse my irony!) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:34, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::No...it's to be taken for what it is. It's not subject to individual interpretations. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Isn't part of the protestant reformation about allowing individual interpretations? If not, who's interpretation is correct? Lutheran? Roman Catholic? Eastern Orthodox? Methodist? Presbyterian? Calvinism? Any one of the thousands of congregational churches? To say that there is only one correct interpretation (yours) is a view that most Christians across the world would dispute. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:49, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::No, the hostility started with you, Karajou. I added something. I explained why. Evidently, you disagreed and so you (a) changed it back and then (b) insulted my contributions generally, without any provocation save that you didn't care for my post. Also evidently, you consider "working with you" to be "reading your mind" as no one here "pre-clears" their edits with you (I wonder, with whom do you pre-clear your edits before making them?). I didn't even think my post was at all controversial. Why? (A) The Bible says "serpent" not Satan (B) Many (though not all) Christians believe that the "serpent" was really Satan. Those are two statements of fact, and so how noting those two facts makes Genesis look "silly" is beyond me. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 19:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::If you intend to continue this fight, then I'm going to boot you from the site. Last warning. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:41, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::If that's the only arrow in your quiver, then I already won the fight. Still, I guess you can at least get the last word.[[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 20:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure if this debate is over, but as one who believes that the serpent was (or was inhabited by) Satan, (and not "thoughtlessly"), I have to support JesusSaves in arguing that the article should actually say what Genesis says, i.e. referring to "serpent", not "Satan", although it being Satan can (should?) be in parenthesis, along the line of JesusSaves' edit. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:45, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with you, and I would agree with him, but when he added a line refering to a New Testament difference when Genesis should stand on it's own, and kept demanding to put it back in when removed, then wanting to argue with me about it without even bothering to work together to create the best article possible on the subject...a line has to be drawn somewhere. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:09, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

==Changes==
First and foremost, this article is about the book of Genesis. It has to describe Genesis; it has to describe the Creation, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, Sodom, Abraham, etc. It cannot open up with with a two-sentence description, then go into a spurious theory about unidentified authors named for letters. And it also does not need to repeat the entire book word for word...only selected verses need to be quoted. What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:24, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Of course! An encylopedia needs to refer, not to quote. But if it refers to one story, then it has to refer to all of them. The authorial theories that most of the rest of the world subscribes to also need a section, complete with references, without using loaded words such as 'spurious' about them and assuming that people aren't adult enough to consider them for themselves. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:30, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

==Archaeological notes==
There is a book entitled Halley's Bible Handbook, by Dr. Henry M. Halley, and when he's telling the story of Genesis he has "archaeological notes" between Biblical lines, i.e. when he tells of the Tower of Babel he has the remains of a ziggurat which has been claimed by archaeologists as the Tower itself, and this is described in sort of a sideline. The same thing could happen here, like in photos that illustrate the article, and the relevent info added to the pics. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:In that case it would need to use the latest research, as represented by Finkelstein and Silberman's ''The Bible Unearthed'' (Touchstone, 2002). --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:26, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Good resources are the norm. I generally don't like the latest ones, because a lot of them are very clear in their bias against the Bible. But I won't close them off completely either. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:06, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Petrus' and my edits ==

Despite agreeing on the [[Talk:Biblical creation account|Biblical creation account talk page]] that a particular view should not be put as though it is the correct one, Petrus has done just that in this article. I have rewritten (and moved) that for what it is; a particular view.

However, I removed completely the claim that "day" ("''yom''") in Genesis 2:4 refers to a single 24-hour day. I'd like some evidence that people (other than Petrus) do actually claim this. I've heard many times the almost-opposite argument that as Genesis 2:4 uses ''yom'' to refer to a long period of time, the days of Genesis 1 must also be long periods of time. I don't recall ever hearing anyone claim that ''yom'' in Genesis 2:4 must be a 24-hour day.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:In ancient Hebrew, yom meant day. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:27, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==needless revert==
I reverted Petrus' change from
* ''One of these claimed contradictions is that chapter 2 '''appears to describe''' the creation of animals after the creation of Adam''
to
* ''One of these claimed contradictions is that chapter 2 '''describes''' the creation of animals after the creation of Adam''
His edit note was, "'''describes', not 'appears to describe': we're talking linguistic fact here, not opinion''".

However, the sentence in the article is talking about the meaning of the narrative, not the meaning of the words. The ''words'' "cats" and "dogs" in the sentence, "it's raining cats and dogs" mean feline and canine creatures, but the phrase as a whole has the ''meaning'' that its raining heavily, not that felines and canines are falling from the clouds. Similarly, if we have a sentence saying, "''Mrs. Smith sent her son to Melbourne High School''", and later another sentence saying, "Mrs. Smith breast fed her son", that doesn't mean that she did this after sending him to high school. Whether these examples are accurate analogues of the passage in question or not is beside the point. The point is that claiming that the narrative has a particular meaning with the justification that the phrase ''in isolation'' has a particular meaning, when others dispute that one follows from the other, is to put a particular point of view as if it's a fact.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:56, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, yes. Wonderful wriggle! My edit referred to the literal meaning of the words - which I thought people like you were rather keen on - rather than their over-all interpretation. I have now made that clear. (What you mean, of course, is that you don't like the implications of what the text actually says: I can't say I blame you.) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:21, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::You thought wrong (as I find so often with anti-creationists; they frequently have little idea of the view that they so readily disparage). Creationists are "keen on" what the author meant. The author did not always mean things to be taken literally (think metaphors, parables, etc.). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:07, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:Except, of course, in chapter one! ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:45, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::No, not except chapter 1. The same ''principle'' applies there, but it doesn't contain any (that I can think of) metaphors, etc. Chapter 1 was to be understood as actual history. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:48, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hmm! Uncanny how this [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html] page seems to have anticipated virtually all your arguments! ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Not uncanny at all. This sort of debate has been going on for centuries. I have a (facsimile reproduction of a) copy of a book ''answering'' alleged contradictions, that was published in 1874! This was not reprinted as a curiosity, but because the alleged contradictions that it answers are still being wheeled out by bibliosceptics today! So the site didn't ''anticipate'' the answers; it was trying to "poison the well" in advance of those answers. I notice that its dismissals of the answers are are weak as water. For example, its response to "That is to be taken metaphorically" merely ridicules those giving that answer, and totally ignores that Bible-believers accept that there is metaphor in the Bible, but that it can be readily identified, and they don't give this answer where metaphor is not involved. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:03, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:'It's literal - except why I say so'? Sure - "When I use a word... it means just what I choose it to mean." (Humpty Dumpty) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:06, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::That's ''not'' what I said, not what I meant, and not what it amounts to. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:37, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Removed the following edit:
:''By the most optimistic estimates, then, nothing in Genesis was written less than a thousand years after the events it attempts to describe, which isn't to say the authors may not have drawn on earlier texts. After all, no works from the Roman period survive in the authors' handwriting, yet the authenticity of, say, the letters of Cicero is rarely disputed. However, the most recent historical and archeological research reported and collated by Finkelstein and Silberman, among others, suggests that the Torah is unlikely to have been written much before the 7th century BC.''

This line of reasoning was applied beginning in the mid-1800s, and was thoroughly disproved. The editor also states that Cicero is undisputed despite having no written evidence in the author's handwriting, yet he tries to disprove Genesis as being no older than the 7th century B.C., and this based on revisionist works by Finkelstein and Silberman. This is evidence of double-standards. If one can accept Cicero based on no evidence, then one can accept the Bible as being written in a far older time than the 7th century B.C....unless the editor has a personal dislike for the Bible, as does Finkelstein and Silberman. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:10, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Can you find me ''one'' interdisciplinary biblical scholar of note who is not in the employ of an evangelical or evangelically-related institution who believes the Bible to have been written any earlier than 722 BCE? Why are you afraid to admit that the bible is only 2700 years old? In fact, if you knew anything about linguistics, you'd know that Hebrew writing does not go back much farther than that (to 1000 BCE), and if the bible had been written, say, 3500 years ago the language would be considerably different, in fact, it would have bordered on proto-Semitic. Additionally, it would have been written in a script unknown to the Jews themselves as they did not develop their first alphabet, borrowing from the Phonecians, until late in the 11th century BCE. (Thus we see just one of the benefits of ''true'' scholarship). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:26, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Question on text ==

It's been a while since I read the text, but why does Noah place a curse on Canaan after Ham sees him naked? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:13, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:The account doesn't spell it out. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:45, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::According to the narrative, Noah was in a drunken slumber - and naked - when Ham walked into his tent (Gen 6:22). Ham then told his brothers about it, who then covered Noah with a blanket in such a manner as not to see his nakedness (Gen 6:23). Then Noah awoke, and knew what Ham had done to him (Gen 6:24), and pronounced a curse, specifying that Canaan would be a servant of servants to his brethren (Gen 6:25).
::Ham must have done something obvious to Noah as to allow Noah to "know about it" after he awoke, as he definately had more than a hangover. Merely telling the brothers that Dad's naked wasn't enough, and some writers speculated was that Ham took advantage of his father's nakedness and quite possibly raped him, then boasted about it, hence the anger from Noah at knowing what Ham done. As to the curse of Canaan...the sons of Ham, according to the Table of Nations in Genesis 10, populated the southern Middle East, Egypt, and Africa. Africans for generations have been kept in a servile manner in one form or another, including American slavery, South African apartied, the current crisis in the Sudan, and others. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:12, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The problem with that last part is that I don't think there's any correlation between Canaan and Africans. Africans likely descended from Cush, another of Ham's sons, but not from Canaan, the one with the curse. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:19, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Africans did what? This is too funny. More accurate would be that Cush decended from Africans (but so did we all). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:29, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==This is supposed to be about the Book of Genesis==
This is not an article to spout off every crank theory as to why Genesis should be doubted. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:56, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Nor, of course, is it an article to spout off every crank theory as to why Genesis should be believed. It should reflect the research - ''all'' of it. But I see that it has now been locked, presumably in order to prevent that. And so Conservapedia moves yet further down the inevitable path of self-discreditation... --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I've seen too many edits from people doing their best to discredit the Bible, but all they have is opinion, and not science. The "letters" theory within the "Authorship" subheading is the only one allowed here, as it is this theory that nearly all debunkers have claimed as evidence against Genesis; this theory was also thoroughly debunked as being the opinions of the men who postulated it. They had no hard evidence backing up their claims. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:00, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It can't reflect ''all'' the research; it has to be selective and only reflect the most relevant and accurate research. Of course there will still be disputes about what qualifies, but a lot of the "research" is not worth including. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== The Fourth Day ==
With the fourth day there is a problem. Either the light on the first day is the Sun, as I was always taught, and the Sun was then placed in the sky on the fourth day. Which seems illogical. Or the Sun was created after the plants on the forth day. Which is impossible.
Then I learned in science that on the early Earth, the atmosphere was cloudy with heavy gases like methane and ammonia. When the plants began to form they filtered the atmosphere and the Sun appeared in the sky. So the verse then makes sense.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 09:38, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:I don't see a problem at all. The Bible says that God created light on the first day, and the Sun on the fourth day, contrary to what you were taught. Why does that seem illogical, and why is it impossible for the Sun to be created 24 hours after the plants?
:What you learnt in science class is a non-biblical view, so trying to mesh that with the biblical view is illogical. It's quite believable that the plants survived for 24 hours without the sun, especially given that there was another (temporary) source of light. But how did the plants survive without the sun for however long it took them to filter the atmosphere?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:14, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::I enjoyed your discussion. [[User:Order]] 5 April, 12:40 (AEST)

Talk:Genesis

2007-04-04T21:27:36Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* Petrus' and my edits */

The formatting for the Bible verses should probably be condensed into paragraph form.

That's a good idea. It is too long in the current formatting

Do you need the full text rather than just a link to a [http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen001.html source]? If you are going to have the full text, might as well make another namespace and let people link there. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:11, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

It's far from the full text, if you know the Bible at all! Its just the most quoted and relevant passage from the book!--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 19:14, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Serpent versus Satan==
I clarified that the "serpent" in the Garden of Eden is not universally thought to have been Satan. I am Christian and I was taught that the serpent probably wasn't Satan (because God cursed all serpents because of the serpent's role in Genesis, and why would God curse an entire species of animals for the actions of Satan? Even if Satan "posessed" the creature, could an animal have possibly resisted?). In any event, in the Jewish tradition, the serpent is also just a serpent and not Satan. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 00:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:You didn't clarify anything. First, I've seen your edits; you like to make a few word aditions or detractions here and there in various articles, but you never make these corrections flow with the rest of the body. The results just make the whole look silly. Second, Genesis 3:15 is clear that God wasn't cursing a snake; the word ''serpent'' is just another title for Satan. And snakes don't talk to people and convince them to grab some fruit, much less cause people do disobey God. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Please try again. In particular, read the surrounding passages when you try to understand the Bible. Genesis 3:14, clearly says:

:::And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.

::(emphasis added) Serpents walked on four legs before God cursed them. The notion that they no longer talk is irrelevant. In the Garden they did. That lions are no longer herbivores doesn't mean they weren't that way in the Garden. I understand that you may not interpret the Bible literally, but I do. Don't attack me for it.

::I should add, Satan is called "serpent" in the New Testament. No where in the Old Testament is he called that, outside of that particular reading of Genesis. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 11:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Then which of the 2700 species of serpent was cursed? Snakes don't talk people into disobeying God; Satan does. This is about Genesis; not about what people think regarding the New Testament. Is there any sentence within the Book of Genesis which states "believed by many in the Christian tradition to have been Satan in the form of a serpent"? Is there anywhere in the entire Old Testament which states "authors of the New Testament believe..."? Did Moses write "I Believe Jesus to have been..."? The answer is no. That means you can knock off your strange edits. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:35, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Is there anything in the Garden of Eden account of Genesis that suggests the serpent is Satan other than your say so? Do you think the authors simply forgot to mention Satan's name? Genesis does *NOT* identify that serpent as Satan. You do. My religion rteaches me that the Bible is the literal word of God handed down to me. It does not teach me that Karajou's non-literal interpretation of the Bible has any weight at all. Why you are so hostile to me because I choose to read the Bible literally and make very fair edits idetifying (a) what the Bible actually says ("serpent") and (b) how many, but not all, Christians interpret that ("serpent is Satan") is beyond me. If you strive for accuracy and do not want extra-biblical material in the text of the article, then the sentence should read "a serpent" without any reference to Satan. I merely added the (extra-Biblical, but correct) parenthetical that many Christians believe the serpent to be Satan because so many Chriatians do thoughtlessly accept that interpretation, even though Genesis doesn't expressly say that. I didn't mean to offend you, but your article has strayed into your personal interpretation of the Bible, and away from what the Bible literally says.

:::::That's what you should have done in the first place. The hostility was the other way around, and it was based on you getting very close to getting booted from the site because you chose to include nonsense, the nonsense being the extra-Biblical thing you claim is true, and your sheer demand...DEMAND...that it be included, instead of working with the rest of us as to the best way to show it. I'm not going to tolerate any book of the Bible being made to look silly. Either work with us in that regard or leave. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:23, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Ah, but the Bible is only meant to be taken literally when I want it to be! (excuse my irony!) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:34, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::No...it's to be taken for what it is. It's not subject to individual interpretations. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Isn't part of the protestant reformation about allowing individual interpretations? If not, who's interpretation is correct? Lutheran? Roman Catholic? Eastern Orthodox? Methodist? Presbyterian? Calvinism? Any one of the thousands of congregational churches? To say that there is only one correct interpretation (yours) is a view that most Christians across the world would dispute. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:49, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::No, the hostility started with you, Karajou. I added something. I explained why. Evidently, you disagreed and so you (a) changed it back and then (b) insulted my contributions generally, without any provocation save that you didn't care for my post. Also evidently, you consider "working with you" to be "reading your mind" as no one here "pre-clears" their edits with you (I wonder, with whom do you pre-clear your edits before making them?). I didn't even think my post was at all controversial. Why? (A) The Bible says "serpent" not Satan (B) Many (though not all) Christians believe that the "serpent" was really Satan. Those are two statements of fact, and so how noting those two facts makes Genesis look "silly" is beyond me. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 19:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::If you intend to continue this fight, then I'm going to boot you from the site. Last warning. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:41, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::If that's the only arrow in your quiver, then I already won the fight. Still, I guess you can at least get the last word.[[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 20:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure if this debate is over, but as one who believes that the serpent was (or was inhabited by) Satan, (and not "thoughtlessly"), I have to support JesusSaves in arguing that the article should actually say what Genesis says, i.e. referring to "serpent", not "Satan", although it being Satan can (should?) be in parenthesis, along the line of JesusSaves' edit. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:45, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with you, and I would agree with him, but when he added a line refering to a New Testament difference when Genesis should stand on it's own, and kept demanding to put it back in when removed, then wanting to argue with me about it without even bothering to work together to create the best article possible on the subject...a line has to be drawn somewhere. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:09, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

==Changes==
First and foremost, this article is about the book of Genesis. It has to describe Genesis; it has to describe the Creation, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, Sodom, Abraham, etc. It cannot open up with with a two-sentence description, then go into a spurious theory about unidentified authors named for letters. And it also does not need to repeat the entire book word for word...only selected verses need to be quoted. What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:24, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Of course! An encylopedia needs to refer, not to quote. But if it refers to one story, then it has to refer to all of them. The authorial theories that most of the rest of the world subscribes to also need a section, complete with references, without using loaded words such as 'spurious' about them and assuming that people aren't adult enough to consider them for themselves. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:30, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

==Archaeological notes==
There is a book entitled Halley's Bible Handbook, by Dr. Henry M. Halley, and when he's telling the story of Genesis he has "archaeological notes" between Biblical lines, i.e. when he tells of the Tower of Babel he has the remains of a ziggurat which has been claimed by archaeologists as the Tower itself, and this is described in sort of a sideline. The same thing could happen here, like in photos that illustrate the article, and the relevent info added to the pics. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:In that case it would need to use the latest research, as represented by Finkelstein and Silberman's ''The Bible Unearthed'' (Touchstone, 2002). --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:26, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Good resources are the norm. I generally don't like the latest ones, because a lot of them are very clear in their bias against the Bible. But I won't close them off completely either. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:06, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Petrus' and my edits ==

Despite agreeing on the [[Talk:Biblical creation account|Biblical creation account talk page]] that a particular view should not be put as though it is the correct one, Petrus has done just that in this article. I have rewritten (and moved) that for what it is; a particular view.

However, I removed completely the claim that "day" ("''yom''") in Genesis 2:4 refers to a single 24-hour day. I'd like some evidence that people (other than Petrus) do actually claim this. I've heard many times the almost-opposite argument that as Genesis 2:4 uses ''yom'' to refer to a long period of time, the days of Genesis 1 must also be long periods of time. I don't recall ever hearing anyone claim that ''yom'' in Genesis 2:4 must be a 24-hour day.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:In ancient Hebrew, yom meant day. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:27, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==needless revert==
I reverted Petrus' change from
* ''One of these claimed contradictions is that chapter 2 '''appears to describe''' the creation of animals after the creation of Adam''
to
* ''One of these claimed contradictions is that chapter 2 '''describes''' the creation of animals after the creation of Adam''
His edit note was, "'''describes', not 'appears to describe': we're talking linguistic fact here, not opinion''".

However, the sentence in the article is talking about the meaning of the narrative, not the meaning of the words. The ''words'' "cats" and "dogs" in the sentence, "it's raining cats and dogs" mean feline and canine creatures, but the phrase as a whole has the ''meaning'' that its raining heavily, not that felines and canines are falling from the clouds. Similarly, if we have a sentence saying, "''Mrs. Smith sent her son to Melbourne High School''", and later another sentence saying, "Mrs. Smith breast fed her son", that doesn't mean that she did this after sending him to high school. Whether these examples are accurate analogues of the passage in question or not is beside the point. The point is that claiming that the narrative has a particular meaning with the justification that the phrase ''in isolation'' has a particular meaning, when others dispute that one follows from the other, is to put a particular point of view as if it's a fact.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:56, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, yes. Wonderful wriggle! My edit referred to the literal meaning of the words - which I thought people like you were rather keen on - rather than their over-all interpretation. I have now made that clear. (What you mean, of course, is that you don't like the implications of what the text actually says: I can't say I blame you.) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:21, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::You thought wrong (as I find so often with anti-creationists; they frequently have little idea of the view that they so readily disparage). Creationists are "keen on" what the author meant. The author did not always mean things to be taken literally (think metaphors, parables, etc.). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:07, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:Except, of course, in chapter one! ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:45, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::No, not except chapter 1. The same ''principle'' applies there, but it doesn't contain any (that I can think of) metaphors, etc. Chapter 1 was to be understood as actual history. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:48, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hmm! Uncanny how this [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html] page seems to have anticipated virtually all your arguments! ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Not uncanny at all. This sort of debate has been going on for centuries. I have a (facsimile reproduction of a) copy of a book ''answering'' alleged contradictions, that was published in 1874! This was not reprinted as a curiosity, but because the alleged contradictions that it answers are still being wheeled out by bibliosceptics today! So the site didn't ''anticipate'' the answers; it was trying to "poison the well" in advance of those answers. I notice that its dismissals of the answers are are weak as water. For example, its response to "That is to be taken metaphorically" merely ridicules those giving that answer, and totally ignores that Bible-believers accept that there is metaphor in the Bible, but that it can be readily identified, and they don't give this answer where metaphor is not involved. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:03, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:'It's literal - except why I say so'? Sure - "When I use a word... it means just what I choose it to mean." (Humpty Dumpty) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:06, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::That's ''not'' what I said, not what I meant, and not what it amounts to. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:37, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Removed the following edit:
:''By the most optimistic estimates, then, nothing in Genesis was written less than a thousand years after the events it attempts to describe, which isn't to say the authors may not have drawn on earlier texts. After all, no works from the Roman period survive in the authors' handwriting, yet the authenticity of, say, the letters of Cicero is rarely disputed. However, the most recent historical and archeological research reported and collated by Finkelstein and Silberman, among others, suggests that the Torah is unlikely to have been written much before the 7th century BC.''

This line of reasoning was applied beginning in the mid-1800s, and was thoroughly disproved. The editor also states that Cicero is undisputed despite having no written evidence in the author's handwriting, yet he tries to disprove Genesis as being no older than the 7th century B.C., and this based on revisionist works by Finkelstein and Silberman. This is evidence of double-standards. If one can accept Cicero based on no evidence, then one can accept the Bible as being written in a far older time than the 7th century B.C....unless the editor has a personal dislike for the Bible, as does Finkelstein and Silberman. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:10, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Can you find me ''one'' interdisciplinary biblical scholar of note who is not in the employ of an evangelical or evangelically-related institution who believes the Bible to have been written any earlier than 722 BCE? Why are you afraid to admit that the bible is only 2700 years old? In fact, if you knew anything about linguistics, you'd know that Hebrew writing does not go back much farther than that (to 1000 BCE), and if the bible had been written, say, 3500 years ago the language would be considerably different, in fact, it would have bordered on proto-Semitic. Additionally, it would have been written in a script unknown to the Jews themselves as they did not develop their first alphabet, borrowing from the Phonecians, until late in the 11th century BCE. (Thus we see just one of the benefits of ''true'' scholarship). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:26, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Question on text ==

It's been a while since I read the text, but why does Noah place a curse on Canaan after Ham sees him naked? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:13, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:The account doesn't spell it out. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:45, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::According to the narrative, Noah was in a drunken slumber - and naked - when Ham walked into his tent (Gen 6:22). Ham then told his brothers about it, who then covered Noah with a blanket in such a manner as not to see his nakedness (Gen 6:23). Then Noah awoke, and knew what Ham had done to him (Gen 6:24), and pronounced a curse, specifying that Canaan would be a servant of servants to his brethren (Gen 6:25).
::Ham must have done something obvious to Noah as to allow Noah to "know about it" after he awoke, as he definately had more than a hangover. Merely telling the brothers that Dad's naked wasn't enough, and some writers speculated was that Ham took advantage of his father's nakedness and quite possibly raped him, then boasted about it, hence the anger from Noah at knowing what Ham done. As to the curse of Canaan...the sons of Ham, according to the Table of Nations in Genesis 10, populated the southern Middle East, Egypt, and Africa. Africans for generations have been kept in a servile manner in one form or another, including American slavery, South African apartied, the current crisis in the Sudan, and others. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:12, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The problem with that last part is that I don't think there's any correlation between Canaan and Africans. Africans likely descended from Cush, another of Ham's sons, but not from Canaan, the one with the curse. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:19, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

==This is supposed to be about the Book of Genesis==
This is not an article to spout off every crank theory as to why Genesis should be doubted. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:56, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Nor, of course, is it an article to spout off every crank theory as to why Genesis should be believed. It should reflect the research - ''all'' of it. But I see that it has now been locked, presumably in order to prevent that. And so Conservapedia moves yet further down the inevitable path of self-discreditation... --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I've seen too many edits from people doing their best to discredit the Bible, but all they have is opinion, and not science. The "letters" theory within the "Authorship" subheading is the only one allowed here, as it is this theory that nearly all debunkers have claimed as evidence against Genesis; this theory was also thoroughly debunked as being the opinions of the men who postulated it. They had no hard evidence backing up their claims. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:00, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It can't reflect ''all'' the research; it has to be selective and only reflect the most relevant and accurate research. Of course there will still be disputes about what qualifies, but a lot of the "research" is not worth including. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== The Fourth Day ==
With the fourth day there is a problem. Either the light on the first day is the Sun, as I was always taught, and the Sun was then placed in the sky on the fourth day. Which seems illogical. Or the Sun was created after the plants on the forth day. Which is impossible.
Then I learned in science that on the early Earth, the atmosphere was cloudy with heavy gases like methane and ammonia. When the plants began to form they filtered the atmosphere and the Sun appeared in the sky. So the verse then makes sense.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 09:38, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:I don't see a problem at all. The Bible says that God created light on the first day, and the Sun on the fourth day, contrary to what you were taught. Why does that seem illogical, and why is it impossible for the Sun to be created 24 hours after the plants?
:What you learnt in science class is a non-biblical view, so trying to mesh that with the biblical view is illogical. It's quite believable that the plants survived for 24 hours without the sun, especially given that there was another (temporary) source of light. But how did the plants survive without the sun for however long it took them to filter the atmosphere?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:14, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::I enjoyed your discussion. [[User:Order]] 5 April, 12:40 (AEST)

Talk:Genesis

2007-04-04T21:26:15Z

NousEpirrhytos: /* Petrus' and my edits */

The formatting for the Bible verses should probably be condensed into paragraph form.

That's a good idea. It is too long in the current formatting

Do you need the full text rather than just a link to a [http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen001.html source]? If you are going to have the full text, might as well make another namespace and let people link there. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:11, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

It's far from the full text, if you know the Bible at all! Its just the most quoted and relevant passage from the book!--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 19:14, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Serpent versus Satan==
I clarified that the "serpent" in the Garden of Eden is not universally thought to have been Satan. I am Christian and I was taught that the serpent probably wasn't Satan (because God cursed all serpents because of the serpent's role in Genesis, and why would God curse an entire species of animals for the actions of Satan? Even if Satan "posessed" the creature, could an animal have possibly resisted?). In any event, in the Jewish tradition, the serpent is also just a serpent and not Satan. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 00:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:You didn't clarify anything. First, I've seen your edits; you like to make a few word aditions or detractions here and there in various articles, but you never make these corrections flow with the rest of the body. The results just make the whole look silly. Second, Genesis 3:15 is clear that God wasn't cursing a snake; the word ''serpent'' is just another title for Satan. And snakes don't talk to people and convince them to grab some fruit, much less cause people do disobey God. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Please try again. In particular, read the surrounding passages when you try to understand the Bible. Genesis 3:14, clearly says:

:::And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.

::(emphasis added) Serpents walked on four legs before God cursed them. The notion that they no longer talk is irrelevant. In the Garden they did. That lions are no longer herbivores doesn't mean they weren't that way in the Garden. I understand that you may not interpret the Bible literally, but I do. Don't attack me for it.

::I should add, Satan is called "serpent" in the New Testament. No where in the Old Testament is he called that, outside of that particular reading of Genesis. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 11:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Then which of the 2700 species of serpent was cursed? Snakes don't talk people into disobeying God; Satan does. This is about Genesis; not about what people think regarding the New Testament. Is there any sentence within the Book of Genesis which states "believed by many in the Christian tradition to have been Satan in the form of a serpent"? Is there anywhere in the entire Old Testament which states "authors of the New Testament believe..."? Did Moses write "I Believe Jesus to have been..."? The answer is no. That means you can knock off your strange edits. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:35, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Is there anything in the Garden of Eden account of Genesis that suggests the serpent is Satan other than your say so? Do you think the authors simply forgot to mention Satan's name? Genesis does *NOT* identify that serpent as Satan. You do. My religion rteaches me that the Bible is the literal word of God handed down to me. It does not teach me that Karajou's non-literal interpretation of the Bible has any weight at all. Why you are so hostile to me because I choose to read the Bible literally and make very fair edits idetifying (a) what the Bible actually says ("serpent") and (b) how many, but not all, Christians interpret that ("serpent is Satan") is beyond me. If you strive for accuracy and do not want extra-biblical material in the text of the article, then the sentence should read "a serpent" without any reference to Satan. I merely added the (extra-Biblical, but correct) parenthetical that many Christians believe the serpent to be Satan because so many Chriatians do thoughtlessly accept that interpretation, even though Genesis doesn't expressly say that. I didn't mean to offend you, but your article has strayed into your personal interpretation of the Bible, and away from what the Bible literally says.

:::::That's what you should have done in the first place. The hostility was the other way around, and it was based on you getting very close to getting booted from the site because you chose to include nonsense, the nonsense being the extra-Biblical thing you claim is true, and your sheer demand...DEMAND...that it be included, instead of working with the rest of us as to the best way to show it. I'm not going to tolerate any book of the Bible being made to look silly. Either work with us in that regard or leave. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:23, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Ah, but the Bible is only meant to be taken literally when I want it to be! (excuse my irony!) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:34, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::No...it's to be taken for what it is. It's not subject to individual interpretations. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Isn't part of the protestant reformation about allowing individual interpretations? If not, who's interpretation is correct? Lutheran? Roman Catholic? Eastern Orthodox? Methodist? Presbyterian? Calvinism? Any one of the thousands of congregational churches? To say that there is only one correct interpretation (yours) is a view that most Christians across the world would dispute. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:49, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::No, the hostility started with you, Karajou. I added something. I explained why. Evidently, you disagreed and so you (a) changed it back and then (b) insulted my contributions generally, without any provocation save that you didn't care for my post. Also evidently, you consider "working with you" to be "reading your mind" as no one here "pre-clears" their edits with you (I wonder, with whom do you pre-clear your edits before making them?). I didn't even think my post was at all controversial. Why? (A) The Bible says "serpent" not Satan (B) Many (though not all) Christians believe that the "serpent" was really Satan. Those are two statements of fact, and so how noting those two facts makes Genesis look "silly" is beyond me. [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 19:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::If you intend to continue this fight, then I'm going to boot you from the site. Last warning. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:41, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::If that's the only arrow in your quiver, then I already won the fight. Still, I guess you can at least get the last word.[[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 20:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure if this debate is over, but as one who believes that the serpent was (or was inhabited by) Satan, (and not "thoughtlessly"), I have to support JesusSaves in arguing that the article should actually say what Genesis says, i.e. referring to "serpent", not "Satan", although it being Satan can (should?) be in parenthesis, along the line of JesusSaves' edit. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:45, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with you, and I would agree with him, but when he added a line refering to a New Testament difference when Genesis should stand on it's own, and kept demanding to put it back in when removed, then wanting to argue with me about it without even bothering to work together to create the best article possible on the subject...a line has to be drawn somewhere. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:09, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

==Changes==
First and foremost, this article is about the book of Genesis. It has to describe Genesis; it has to describe the Creation, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, Sodom, Abraham, etc. It cannot open up with with a two-sentence description, then go into a spurious theory about unidentified authors named for letters. And it also does not need to repeat the entire book word for word...only selected verses need to be quoted. What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:24, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Of course! An encylopedia needs to refer, not to quote. But if it refers to one story, then it has to refer to all of them. The authorial theories that most of the rest of the world subscribes to also need a section, complete with references, without using loaded words such as 'spurious' about them and assuming that people aren't adult enough to consider them for themselves. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:30, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

==Archaeological notes==
There is a book entitled Halley's Bible Handbook, by Dr. Henry M. Halley, and when he's telling the story of Genesis he has "archaeological notes" between Biblical lines, i.e. when he tells of the Tower of Babel he has the remains of a ziggurat which has been claimed by archaeologists as the Tower itself, and this is described in sort of a sideline. The same thing could happen here, like in photos that illustrate the article, and the relevent info added to the pics. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:In that case it would need to use the latest research, as represented by Finkelstein and Silberman's ''The Bible Unearthed'' (Touchstone, 2002). --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:26, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Good resources are the norm. I generally don't like the latest ones, because a lot of them are very clear in their bias against the Bible. But I won't close them off completely either. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:06, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Petrus' and my edits ==

Despite agreeing on the [[Talk:Biblical creation account|Biblical creation account talk page]] that a particular view should not be put as though it is the correct one, Petrus has done just that in this article. I have rewritten (and moved) that for what it is; a particular view.

However, I removed completely the claim that "day" ("''yom''") in Genesis 2:4 refers to a single 24-hour day. I'd like some evidence that people (other than Petrus) do actually claim this. I've heard many times the almost-opposite argument that as Genesis 2:4 uses ''yom'' to refer to a long period of time, the days of Genesis 1 must also be long periods of time. I don't recall ever hearing anyone claim that ''yom'' in Genesis 2:4 must be a 24-hour day.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

----
I reverted Petrus' change from
* ''One of these claimed contradictions is that chapter 2 '''appears to describe''' the creation of animals after the creation of Adam''
to
* ''One of these claimed contradictions is that chapter 2 '''describes''' the creation of animals after the creation of Adam''
His edit note was, "'''describes', not 'appears to describe': we're talking linguistic fact here, not opinion''".

However, the sentence in the article is talking about the meaning of the narrative, not the meaning of the words. The ''words'' "cats" and "dogs" in the sentence, "it's raining cats and dogs" mean feline and canine creatures, but the phrase as a whole has the ''meaning'' that its raining heavily, not that felines and canines are falling from the clouds. Similarly, if we have a sentence saying, "''Mrs. Smith sent her son to Melbourne High School''", and later another sentence saying, "Mrs. Smith breast fed her son", that doesn't mean that she did this after sending him to high school. Whether these examples are accurate analogues of the passage in question or not is beside the point. The point is that claiming that the narrative has a particular meaning with the justification that the phrase ''in isolation'' has a particular meaning, when others dispute that one follows from the other, is to put a particular point of view as if it's a fact.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:56, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, yes. Wonderful wriggle! My edit referred to the literal meaning of the words - which I thought people like you were rather keen on - rather than their over-all interpretation. I have now made that clear. (What you mean, of course, is that you don't like the implications of what the text actually says: I can't say I blame you.) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:21, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::You thought wrong (as I find so often with anti-creationists; they frequently have little idea of the view that they so readily disparage). Creationists are "keen on" what the author meant. The author did not always mean things to be taken literally (think metaphors, parables, etc.). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:07, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:Except, of course, in chapter one! ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:45, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::No, not except chapter 1. The same ''principle'' applies there, but it doesn't contain any (that I can think of) metaphors, etc. Chapter 1 was to be understood as actual history. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:48, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hmm! Uncanny how this [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html] page seems to have anticipated virtually all your arguments! ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Not uncanny at all. This sort of debate has been going on for centuries. I have a (facsimile reproduction of a) copy of a book ''answering'' alleged contradictions, that was published in 1874! This was not reprinted as a curiosity, but because the alleged contradictions that it answers are still being wheeled out by bibliosceptics today! So the site didn't ''anticipate'' the answers; it was trying to "poison the well" in advance of those answers. I notice that its dismissals of the answers are are weak as water. For example, its response to "That is to be taken metaphorically" merely ridicules those giving that answer, and totally ignores that Bible-believers accept that there is metaphor in the Bible, but that it can be readily identified, and they don't give this answer where metaphor is not involved. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:03, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:'It's literal - except why I say so'? Sure - "When I use a word... it means just what I choose it to mean." (Humpty Dumpty) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:06, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::That's ''not'' what I said, not what I meant, and not what it amounts to. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:37, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Removed the following edit:
:''By the most optimistic estimates, then, nothing in Genesis was written less than a thousand years after the events it attempts to describe, which isn't to say the authors may not have drawn on earlier texts. After all, no works from the Roman period survive in the authors' handwriting, yet the authenticity of, say, the letters of Cicero is rarely disputed. However, the most recent historical and archeological research reported and collated by Finkelstein and Silberman, among others, suggests that the Torah is unlikely to have been written much before the 7th century BC.''

This line of reasoning was applied beginning in the mid-1800s, and was thoroughly disproved. The editor also states that Cicero is undisputed despite having no written evidence in the author's handwriting, yet he tries to disprove Genesis as being no older than the 7th century B.C., and this based on revisionist works by Finkelstein and Silberman. This is evidence of double-standards. If one can accept Cicero based on no evidence, then one can accept the Bible as being written in a far older time than the 7th century B.C....unless the editor has a personal dislike for the Bible, as does Finkelstein and Silberman. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:10, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Can you find me ''one'' interdisciplinary biblical scholar of note who is not in the employ of an evangelical or evangelically-related institution who believes the Bible to have been written any earlier than 722 BCE? Why are you afraid to admit that the bible is only 2700 years old? In fact, if you knew anything about linguistics, you'd know that Hebrew writing does not go back much farther than that (to 1000 BCE), and if the bible had been written, say, 3500 years ago the language would be considerably different, in fact, it would have bordered on proto-Semitic. Additionally, it would have been written in a script unknown to the Jews themselves as they did not develop their first alphabet, borrowing from the Phonecians, until late in the 11th century BCE. (Thus we see just one of the benefits of ''true'' scholarship). [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:26, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Question on text ==

It's been a while since I read the text, but why does Noah place a curse on Canaan after Ham sees him naked? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:13, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:The account doesn't spell it out. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:45, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::According to the narrative, Noah was in a drunken slumber - and naked - when Ham walked into his tent (Gen 6:22). Ham then told his brothers about it, who then covered Noah with a blanket in such a manner as not to see his nakedness (Gen 6:23). Then Noah awoke, and knew what Ham had done to him (Gen 6:24), and pronounced a curse, specifying that Canaan would be a servant of servants to his brethren (Gen 6:25).
::Ham must have done something obvious to Noah as to allow Noah to "know about it" after he awoke, as he definately had more than a hangover. Merely telling the brothers that Dad's naked wasn't enough, and some writers speculated was that Ham took advantage of his father's nakedness and quite possibly raped him, then boasted about it, hence the anger from Noah at knowing what Ham done. As to the curse of Canaan...the sons of Ham, according to the Table of Nations in Genesis 10, populated the southern Middle East, Egypt, and Africa. Africans for generations have been kept in a servile manner in one form or another, including American slavery, South African apartied, the current crisis in the Sudan, and others. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:12, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The problem with that last part is that I don't think there's any correlation between Canaan and Africans. Africans likely descended from Cush, another of Ham's sons, but not from Canaan, the one with the curse. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:19, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

==This is supposed to be about the Book of Genesis==
This is not an article to spout off every crank theory as to why Genesis should be doubted. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:56, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Nor, of course, is it an article to spout off every crank theory as to why Genesis should be believed. It should reflect the research - ''all'' of it. But I see that it has now been locked, presumably in order to prevent that. And so Conservapedia moves yet further down the inevitable path of self-discreditation... --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I've seen too many edits from people doing their best to discredit the Bible, but all they have is opinion, and not science. The "letters" theory within the "Authorship" subheading is the only one allowed here, as it is this theory that nearly all debunkers have claimed as evidence against Genesis; this theory was also thoroughly debunked as being the opinions of the men who postulated it. They had no hard evidence backing up their claims. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:00, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It can't reflect ''all'' the research; it has to be selective and only reflect the most relevant and accurate research. Of course there will still be disputes about what qualifies, but a lot of the "research" is not worth including. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== The Fourth Day ==
With the fourth day there is a problem. Either the light on the first day is the Sun, as I was always taught, and the Sun was then placed in the sky on the fourth day. Which seems illogical. Or the Sun was created after the plants on the forth day. Which is impossible.
Then I learned in science that on the early Earth, the atmosphere was cloudy with heavy gases like methane and ammonia. When the plants began to form they filtered the atmosphere and the Sun appeared in the sky. So the verse then makes sense.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 09:38, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:I don't see a problem at all. The Bible says that God created light on the first day, and the Sun on the fourth day, contrary to what you were taught. Why does that seem illogical, and why is it impossible for the Sun to be created 24 hours after the plants?
:What you learnt in science class is a non-biblical view, so trying to mesh that with the biblical view is illogical. It's quite believable that the plants survived for 24 hours without the sun, especially given that there was another (temporary) source of light. But how did the plants survive without the sun for however long it took them to filter the atmosphere?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:14, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::I enjoyed your discussion. [[User:Order]] 5 April, 12:40 (AEST)