What to do when contradiction happens?

[White_Tree]

Show me that other levels of “reality”. What objective evidence can you present for its existence?

Of course all your objections (by every one of you) is based open God not being crystal clear in every chapter and verse. Why not?

Nothing of value is given for free.

What you ask for is greater than any earthly treasure, and requires commensurate sacrifice in order to possess (cf. Matthew 13:44-46).

What have you sacrificed to be deserving of the things you demand?

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

And specifically, where the Bible is attempting to assert a scientific proposition, please!

Kings 7:23

“Then he made the molten sea; it was made with a circular rim, and measured ten cubits across, five in height, and thirty in circumference.” 1 Kings 7:23.

This?

It’s a description of the temple that Solomon was building. There was a feature inside of it – they called it “the molten sea” – it was a large basin filled with water inside of the temple.

This isn’t an example of “the Bible attempting to assert a scientific proposition” in a way that contradicts science! And, if it’s the best example you’ve got, then I think we can dispose of your objection!

 

[Abrosz]

Nothing of value is given for free.

There is no value in giving some information to support a hypothesis.

This isn’t an example of “the Bible attempting to assert a scientific proposition” in a way that contradicts science!

The value of “pi” is incorrect. If the diameter is 10 cubits, then the circumference in not 30 cubits. And that is just one objection not subject to disagreement. As a matter of fact there were some politicians who wanted to rewrite the math books to reflect that the value of “pi” is exactly three.

 

[Gorgias]

The value of “pi” is incorrect. If the diameter is 10 cubits, then the circumference in not 30 cubits.

Wait – they round the number (to 30 cubits from 31.415 cubits) and you squawk “scientific error!!!”??? My advice to you, friend, is to try decaffeinated; it might calm you down a bit.

As a matter of fact there were some politicians who wanted to rewrite the math books to reflect that the value of “pi” is exactly three.

That’s a problem with the politicians, then, and their misunderstanding of the Bible – the same misunderstanding that you seem to be suffering under, that “the Bible is science” – and not a problem with the Bible texts themselves.

 

[Dovekin]

Sarcelle:

This is where the term poetic license comes in.

Sorry, the value determining the circumference of a circle from the value of the radius is NOT poetic

But it is irrational, a number we cannot express fully by using rational numbers. Any use of π actually is poetic license in that sense. If 3 is an incorrect approximation for π, technically every other numerical approximation is also incorrect. 356/113 is still just an approximation. We still do not know the precise value of π in rational numerical terms.

The Bible, and most writing, uses words to convey something that is more than the words themselves. In that sense π is a perfect analogy for poetic license. Π is for talking about circles with a language that only knows a line. The Bible talks about God by using human language, not by reducing God to a good approximation but by opening the line to see the circle in it.

And yes, it is possible for something to be written by God and by human authors at the same time. Inspiration is not easy to define with rational numbers, but it is a concept Catholics believe in.

 

[Gorgias]

Sorry, the value determining the circumference of a circle from the value of the radius is NOT poetic.

If you have access to a spreadsheet program, please enter this formula and tell us what you get:
=ROUND(10*PI(),-1)
In “formula language”, what you have here is the answer to the question “round ‘the value of the circumference of a circle with diameter 10’ to the nearest tens”.

What answer do you get, hmm?

And that’s a purely “scientific” approach! (Well… ‘mathematical’, but you get the point!).

 

[Abrosz]

356/113 is still just an approximation.

But one approximation is not the same as another one. Even in those times, educated people had a better approximation. And, of course the few words: “approximately equals” would have gone a long way.

What you said reminds me of another conversation, where someone asserted that the chance of winning the lottery jackpot is 50%… meaning that you either win it or not.

Inspiration is not easy to define with rational numbers, but it is a concept Catholics believe in.

I have no problem with your concept. The problem is that you are unable / unwilling to translate it to something that other people can relate to.

For example, the horrors of war inspired Picasso to create his famous picture “Guernica”. That is how “inspiration” looks like.

 

[Dovekin]

The problem is that you are unable / unwilling to translate it to something that other people can relate to.

Translate π into numbers we normally use. I thought we used Greek letters because it cannot be expressed with ordinary numerals. My preference for expressing π would be “more than 3”, but that again is going beyond the numerals.

the horrors of war inspired Picasso to create his famous picture “Guernica”. That is how “inspiration” looks like.

That is a good definition. Can you observe what happened at Guernica to test it? Picasso used paint and canvas to express chaos and destruction; did he accurately portray the configuration of the German planes? Can we dismiss the painting as inaccurate for its imprecise detail?

 

[whatistrue]

So was I. Kings 7:23. “And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.”

Even in those times people knew that the circumference of a circle is NOT three times of the diameter. (In other words, the value of “pi” is NOT 3.) The Chinese even had an incredibly precise approximation for the value of “pi”, they used 355/113. And this is just one example.

In other words, the text in the bible is contradicted by reality. And that is the question: what does one do in tat case?

They also knew that “round” and “perfectly circular” are not synonymous, and that “cubit” was at best an approximate measure. You said it yourself, but then proceeded to ignore or deny it - the Bible is not a science text, or a math text, or a history as we understand history today.

So what one does in this case is not worry about a writer that either didn’t know or incorrectly expressed the value of pi because it isn’t relevant to the purpose of the Bible.

 

[Bernoulli]

And, of course the few words: “approximately equals” would have gone a long way.

That goes without saying. Even physicists today don’t always state that something is approximated, because it’s so obvious. If there is one significant digit in the initial measure, the result of a multiplication by a mathematical constant has usually one significant digit.

 

[o_mlly]

The problem is that you are unable / unwilling to translate it to something that other people can relate to.

No problem.

The issues of sacred scripture are not “science” fact but theological truth that can be extracted from the substance, not the form, of the text. For example, Genesis presents not the religious vision of the patriarchs (whose deeds it recounts) but the religious visions of the era of its final composition.

Taking the accidents of time and place away, the creation story in Genesis tells us about the nature of time, reaching its climax in the Sabbath. The text tells us about the nature of the world, reaching its perfection in God’s pleasure with what God had created, God’s blessing and sanctifying creation. It also tells us about the character of humankind, man and women, perfect in God’s image, like God, but tragically flawed.

 

[goout]

goout:

You let science do what it is intended for, and let the bible do what it is intended for.
Very simple. Don’t overcomplicate it.

You assume that there is no discrepancy between the two.

Let me propose an excruciatingly simple question to you, to illustrate your misconception.:

Do you or do you not rely on pastoral/psychological self help books to cure your illnesses?
If not, why do you have a problem distinguishing between science, and scripture?

The two are not intended for the same thing.
Fundamentalists on the other hand insist on conflating science and scripture. I’m not sure what belief system you subscribe to, so maybe you could help us out there.

 

[Gorgias]

I’m not sure what belief system you subscribe to, so maybe you could help us out there.

Based on what we’ve seen in threads around here, the answer will be “atheist” / “agnostic”.

So, the problem is, he doesn’t think the Bible is valuable as a spiritual guide. Therefore, the only use he could possibly see is for its scientific value. Hence, his quandary: it’s not the Word of God, so it must be a science book; but, it’s not a science book, so… what is it?

 

[goout]

goout:

I’m not sure what belief system you subscribe to, so maybe you could help us out there.

Based on what we’ve seen in threads around here, the answer will be “atheist” / “agnostic”.

So, the problem is, he doesn’t think the Bible is valuable as a spiritual guide. Therefore, the only use he could possibly see is for its scientific value. Hence, his quandary: it’s not the Word of God, so it must be a science book; but, it’s not a science book, so… what is it?

It’s a fundamentalist straw man for atheists who don’t want to address Catholic Christianity.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

And just what does the word “ inspire ” mean? Does it mean that God imprinted the “truth” onto the brain of a few, selected individuals, and allowed the distortions that are inevitable during such a transition?

I told you exactly what Divine Inspiration means in a Catholic context in that post. God protected the writers from errors in conveying their moral and religious message, much like the clergy is today.

There is no evidence for that.

And you have some to the contrary, I assume? You have evidence to prove God didn’t inspire the authors in the Catholic manner?

And besides. why allow ANY error? To sow confusion?

Because some things aren’t important to the moral development of humanity? It’s a human text, not God’s literal words, and some things are bound to be mistaken. You’re the only confused one here, likely because you want to be. Nobody else that knows the teaching I’ve tried to inform you of has their faith shaken by such a revelation.

 

[goout]

Zaccheus:

You are trying to apply a level of precision that was not intended, was not needed, and that people normally would not apply in such a context.

It is not just the lack of precision, but that at the same time, other cultures had a much better approximation. To say that the simple people, who wrote those passages did not know any better, nor did they care - would be perfectly acceptable. But not the word of God.

You can’t have both ways. Either the Bible is the word of God, or it is written by some people, who did not know any better. Of course the Bible could have said that the circumference of the circle is APPROXIMATELY 355/113 times the radius.

Of course that was just one example. The discrepancies between the bible and reality are far too numerous to mention. The so-called creation of the first human couple cannot be accepted as literally true, and yet, many apologists argue otherwise.

To sum up: until there is NO “Catholic Annotated Bible” which would enumerate which verses are literally true, and which are allegorical, you are not in the position to argue. There are far too many verses which are ALLOWED to be taken literally or allegorically at the “whim” of the apologist. And THAT is the unforgivable problem.

And YOU just provided a textbook fundamentalist viewpoint. Why can’t atheists separate themselves from fundamentalist mindsets?
That’s an even more perplexing question that why scripture and science aren’t the same thing.

 

[anendlesswaltz]

I’ve been thinking about this topic in general for quite a while and studying, too. I’ve read a few books about the OT genesis accounts, in particular, that i found very enlightening. As a Christian, my conclusion thus far is this: The Bible is not infallible, but God is infallible.

I think its important to look at a text with an open mind, in general. You have to be willing to interpret it differently than how you were taught growing up if you want to find plausible theories and possible answers for your questions. If you’re a Christian, do this prayerfully. Pray continuously. These two things are the most important.

Context is very important. Who was this passage primarily written to? What was its purpose? If its one of Paul’s letters, making an outline going through his argument and supports is helpful i have found. I think it is just as important to try to understand how the people of that day would have read it. How did they see and understand the world - scientifically, culturally, etc. What was their environment like - what was going on?

I place such importance on this because like i said above, i do not believe the bible is infallible. It was not even compiled as ‘the bible’ until a few hundred years ago and with an incomplete understanding based on what they had available at the time. They didn’t have the dead sea scrolls and they only had the foreign langauge translations to work from that they did. They also had their own biases and things they wnated it to say or things they wanted to clarify that they assumed were correct. Very important but i have read that paraphrasing was accepted in Jesus time. This means there’s no one correct specific wording, i think…the overall message the heart is important. Not the specific wording. And then there’s connotations to that - could one who didn’t know how to read have heard wrong? Idk.

It is through approaching the Bible in this manner, prayerfully, with such a happy zeal to learn, that i have been able to reconcile my faith with what science teaches us about the world. It requires some very scary thing, though, like being willing to consider the possibility that you were taught a very strict interpretation that might not be correct after all. At least i found it intimidating. But i also knew my mom would be very angry if she knew i was asking questions like these and wouldn’t help at all so i had to actively hide my search from her.

Editting to go out on a limb and admit something i’m sure will anger people. I do not believe many Genesis accounts to be something we are meant to take literally. In otherwords, Genesis Chapters 1-11. I also think Moses did not write the Law. Perhaps he wrote the notes, but not all of that. I also think the ‘clobber verses’ found in Leviticus are the result of the bias of a person writing it. Just reading through it, carefully, i think the ‘clarification’ lines below the main rule lines were edited in by someone later.

Please please please nobody get mad? I LOVE this sort of thing but its so tabboo i never get to talk about it with anybody.

 

[John_Martin]

Here is what a very recent article in the Washington Post said of the definition of Catholic Mass - this is what Science will tell you you are eating and drinking on Sunday if you are:

Communion at the church — the Catholic ritual of sharing wafers and wine or grape juice

Science does not admit that the spiritual creation and creatures are part of the created universe, but requires that all causal relatedness be of material bodies (wow, where does that leave Jesus, the Virgin Mary, Elijah, etc.?)
Science does not admit that anyone has a spiritual soul, but that all human intellect and will reside in the material of the brain.

But all, absolutely all, material reality is “moved, unoriginal” reality, meaning it cannot but react - no acting, only reacting, no imagining.

Science does not know how to have a starting point that admits certain un-study-able reality having being alongside study-able reality. Science can study material and temporal movement and change, but “being” is beyond its capacity.

 

[o_mlly]

Since science’s conclusions are always provisional the OP more correctly should read:
“What to do when contrarianism happens?”

 

[vsedriver]

But one approximation is not the same as another one. Even in those times, educated people had a better approximation. And, of course the few words: “approximately equals” would have gone a long way.

people rarely write an explanation of something that is already commonly understood. So not using the exact precise mathematical number for pi or adding the word ‘approximately’ is unnecessary when everyone already understands what is meant by the text. The author is telling us there was a round bowl in the temple. What more do you need to know?

The fact that you are questioning it 2000 years later has no bearing on its validity as the inspired word of God.