Bible Contradictions (idea)

• Copying error
  These errors are known to happen. Hand-copying manuscripts had downsides, and this was one of them. Usually, the error will be detected when the page is checked for errors. If the error is overlooked, then most likely all future copies of it will contain the same error. However, due to the large quantities of manuscripts known today, most transcription errors can be found because by comparing sources. I think that there are still several such errors that have proliferated to such a degree that those manuscripts are the only ones we have, and as such we cannot detect them. These errors are usually numerical in nature rather that tyops in words. I wouldn't say that these are even a challenge to Biblical Literalism.
• Technical error
  This would include things like scientific errors or mathematical errors.

  One such "error" is noted in Pi in the Bible. Another one that you might know about is a scientific error in Genesis, which I will address briefly. The contradiction is thus: In Genesis 1:11, plants are created. Later, in Genesis 1:13, God makes the sun/moon/stars. Well, how can plants live without light? One possible explanation is that God provided ambient light for the plants. This could be done by miraculous intervention, or what I prefer is that the atmosphere was not clear, so there was sunlight in the sky, but no sun (Note that in Genesis 1:2, God was hovering over the waters, so from that frame of reference no celestial objects would be visible.). I think that the words used allow for the sun to already be created. Additional support is lended from God making the stars on the same "day". Even if it were a long day as an old-earth creationist says, we can right now see stars that are older than the Earth. Possible interpretations are limited by Science, but not totally extinguished.

  Anyway, if there are indeed these technical errors in the Bible, I would say that they are a challenge to Biblical Literalism, but not as serious as the theological type of error.

• Theological error
  These are the real challenges to Christianity. However, these should not occur often since the obviously contradictory books would be deemed not-from-God, and hence not put in the Bible. So, you will have to look deeper to find the theological contradictions, but please be careful. For example, if the Bible told us that humans created God then that would be a serious problem. So, you would look for the speaker (could be the author, could be somebody else being quoted), their mode of speech (are they being sarcastic?), and perhaps other things. If you can establish that it was a real contradiction being conveyed to the reader, then you have a case for challenging the authority of the author, and therefore challenging the collection called the Bible.
• Other - I'm not sure if there are other categories.

And now for the previous content of this node:

An attempt at debunking some of Segnbora-t's contradictions:

• The keeping sabbath holy thing: See Old Testament law doesn't apply to Christians. The Exodus verse is instruction to Jews. The NT verse one is instruction to Christians, saying that it really doesn't matter if you think a certain day is special, just don't get all huffed up if somebody else thinks otherwise. Note: Romans 14:15 isn't where that verse is located, but I think it is in the NT somewhere.
• The Earth's destruction thing: Consider the context of that Ecclesiastes verse: "Generations come and generations go, but the earth remains forever." It is part of a speech by the teacher (mentioned in 1:1), where he basically says that everything is meaningless: pleasures, toil, riches, even wisdom. The point of the verse isn't that Earth will last forever, but rather that a human's life is short and pointless in comparison to the Earth. The teacher is not trying to establish a scientific fact; he is trying to make his point, and I think he makes it well. Perhaps the intended meaning in Hebrew is that the Earth seems to last forever, and it was mistranslated into English, but take that with a grain of salt.
• The seeing God thing: You could say the same about Jesus. If Jesus is God, when people looked at Jesus' face, didn't they see God's? However, I would say that the John verse is talking about not the face of a physical manifestation of God, but rather his heavenly face. I think this because in the same verse it says "Jesus who is at the Father's side ...", and there is no record of God always physically being next to Jesus as he walked around. So, I think the verse is saying that nobody has seen God's heavenly face.

(Presuming a global flood, the rain is not necessarily overwhelming.)

(Apologies for the roundabout method of calculation)
I fail to see what's so overwhelming about 15 feet per hour, unless those 15 feet all come at once every hour! Let's turn this into metric, for convenience: 15 feet per hour is equivalent to 15*30 = 450 cm per hour, which is 7.5 cm per minute, or .125 cm per second. Considering that the biggest raindrops have a terminal speed of 8 meters per second (I read it on the Internet, it must be true :-) ), and a mL of water is exactly a gram (by definition, apparently), we can use simple math and physics to show the force needed to hold up a roof under the impact of the rain.

Let's use a 10cm by 10cm square as our sample area, and use 1 second for our sample time. If we give it a height equal to the height of rain falling in one second, we can find the volume of rain that falls on that square for that second. So, take 10cm*10cm*0.125cm, which gives us 12.5 cm^3 in volume. Conveniently, 1 cm^3 = 1 mL, and 1 mL of water = 1 g. So, 12.5 cm^3 translates to 12.5 grams, or 0.0125 kg. The rain falls at 8 meter per second. Next, we find the momentum. P = mv = (0.0125 kg)(8 m/s) = 0.1 kgm/s. Momentum is also force times time (P = Ft), which is equivalent to F = P/t. Since we are using a 1 second interval, we get 0.1 newtons for every 10cm by 10cm area, or 1/100th of a meter squared. Multiply by 100, we and get 10 newtons for every meter squared (those of you who know physics can already tell by now that this force is not overwhelming). Now, the Bible states the dimensions of the presumably rectangular ark. The roof is 135x22.5 meters (Genesis 6:15), assuming it's flat. This makes an area of about 3040 meters squared. So, 10 newtons times 3040 gives us about 30400 newtons applied to the entire ark. Divide this by 9.8 (how many Newtons a 1-kg object weighs on Earth), and we can see what equivalent mass sitting on the ship would exert that force. The answer is 3100 kg. Even with the upper limit of 20 000 feet over the 40 days, it is 4300 kg. These extra "weights" are not very significant (A few extra elephants' worth on a large ark). However, I don't know enough about the shape of the roof (top surface) to remark on the layer of water that hasn't run off yet. If it's a flat roof, I suppose you'd get some sort of parabola-shaped blob of water on top, which might put a considerable extra strain on the structure. If it's a pointed roof, you could expect a quick run-off, and the ark could then easily survive that load. In addition, the rain would be deflected off a pointed roof instead of hitting head-on, which would lessen the vertical load created from impact.

Erosion probably isn't a problem, since it is only rain (perhaps the layer of water that has not yet run off would also serve to cushion impacts). The pitch that the ark was covered with would probably keep the wood from getting waterlogged. Yes, I know that buildings and vehicles have problems with only one foot of water per hour. Then again, buildings and vehicles don't float. :-)

In addition, I have assumed that all the flood's water is rain. This isn't true, because at least some water came from the "springs of the great deep", which I would interpret as aquifers or something, but definitely not rain.

In conclusion, I would say that John Allen Paulos may be a victim of Innumeracy himself. However, although excessive rainfall may be an invalid point against a global flood, I do have other reasons for rejecting it (the global flood), namely:

• The Bible allows for a local flood. See http://www.reasons.org/resources/books/genesisquestion/gq18.html
• I believe that God has stopped creating lifeforms (we are still in the seventh creation day of rest), which fits with an old earth creation view. There is no way that rapid speciation could have happened in the short time after the flood if God didn't do it. Even evolutionists aren't that optimistic about natural speciation. :-)