ex-preacher

It isn't adequate. Please give me the citation for your assertion that Peter denied Christ to 1 person three times.

Here's the way my Bible reads:

Peter’s 3 denials

Matthew:
1. servant girl in courtyard
2. another girl on porch
3. bystanders

Mark:
1. servant girl in courtyard
2. same girl in gateway
3. bystanders

Luke:
1. servant girl in courtyard
2. man
3. another man

John:
1. woman in courtyard
2. “they” around fire
3. slave of high priest

The usual way to reconcile this obvious contradiction is to claim that Peter denied Jesus between six and nine times. After all, Jesus didn't say Peter would deny him *only* three times.

The fact is, you can weasle out of any contradiction by the use of some clever rules (textual corruption, symbolic meanings, conflation, paraphrase, etc). The only problem for the Christian is that these same rules can be used to prove that the Koran or the Book of Mormon are also free of contradictions (only they don't have any textual corruptions). In fact, you can use these rules to prove any book ever written is inerrant.

Let me re-state my question: Please give me an example of the type of contradiction (or near contradiction) which you find meaningful. If you don't know of any in the Bible, then give me one from another source. I will use your example to find such contradictions in the Bible. Still not holding my breath. And still unconvinced that you are really here to learn anything. Show me.

ex-preacher

Excellent observation. A logical conclusion: don't base your life on either one.


<STRONG> I'm confused. Are you saying that you aren't one of the wacky Christians who holds to an inerrant Bible? If so, what are we arguing about? Are you one of those super-wacky Christians who holds that the Bible is partially inerrant? And, of course, only you know which parts are inerrant. If the Bible cannot be trusted on minor details (numbers, names) which can be verified why should it be trusted on major doctrines which can't be verified?

svensky

expreacher, my point was that that muslims beleive the koran to be passed down from God directly. The mormons believe that the book of mormon was translated from the umin and thumin. In both instances they hold that the books come directly from the hand of God, and that they are perfect. They also have there holy books being written over a comparativly short period. I would not much such a claim about the Bible. The bible is written over several thousand years by quite a number of different authors.

As to what would i accept as a contradiction. I'm not sure. That is what i have set out to find.

The point i have made a couple of times now though is that it seems that any time i look for examples of biblical contradictions, i see pages and pages of examples that are not meaningful. It is unreasonable in the extreme to cite two verses side by side, with no context what so ever, ignore what sort of literature they are and then claim we have a contradiction becasue they both make a strong statements that seem to be in opposition.

At this point in my life, I have been a christian for 8 years, since leaving athiesim (And its attendant nihilism) at age 18. I am utterly convinced of the truth fo christianity, and my experience of claims that the bible is full of errors is only every poorly backed up. Given i do beleive the bible to be inspired by the Lord, i'm seeking to test this assumption.

If i was shown a good contradiction, that i couldn't answer easily, i would not simply renounce my faith and walk away, i would seek out scholars and the like and investigate the problem furthur, until it was resolved to my satisfaction one way or the other. I'm not closed to the idea that the bible might contain a contradiction, but i am merely to have seen a good one yet.

I am generally interested in this discussion, keep in mind we sit on opposite sides of a fence. You expreacher are obviously not a christian, so any level of evidence against christianity is likely to be relativly uncritically accepted, becasue it affirms what you beleive, while attacks on your position will be far more critically evaluated. Now i'm sure i do this too. I will accept an explanation of a contradiction far more easily than you will (apparently, if i have misjudged you, i appologise, but i would ask you to honest here), and you appear to be willing to accept an apparent contradiction more easily than I. It is the nature of the camps we reside in.

Jason

svensky

Grand Nubian,

I do seem to remeber you saying that you didn't have a point, you simply quoted some verses and that i assumed the rest. Also i haven't had a chance to dig through verses listed. Dont claim vistory simple becasue i haven't had a chance to reply.

Besides, i think you need to make a stronger assertion than that. Again, i say , And ?

The God created evil quotes i've seen in the past tend to be in a context of God being in control of everything, and nothing happening without him being in control, the deception passages seem to be similar to the pharoh one, which again I dont honestly find a problem and evil comes from God, again I think you may overstate what you have.

I will look the verses up, but check my reply to expreacher above, i'm less willing to accept a peice of evidence at first glance than you (obviously).

As for making ad hominen attacks. I'm not sure where i did. I compared the evidence presented in long lists of biblical problems to a large and clumsy club, when i was expecting a rapier. That seems to be a comment on the argument and not an attack on you.

Jason

Grand Nubian

~You expreacher are obviously not a christian, so any level of evidence against christianity is likely to be relativly uncritically accepted, becasue it affirms what you beleive, while attacks on your position will be far more critically evaluated. Now i'm sure i do this too.~


LOL, this means that he will 'answer' just to 'answer' so he can claim that he "answered".
What a L_O_S_E_R!

svensky

Doubting thomas,

I am familar with the bits you cite. I'm not convinced this is a real problem. The Bible is a long and complex book. There is bound to be a diffence of opinion over bits and peices of it. I'm not sure what would qualify as a contradiction for me. I'm sure it would be obvious when i see it.

I'm not looking to be difficult here, people dont need to debate me at length, initally i was expecting to be pointed to a small collection of devestating arguments (or apparently so). I am however pointed to pages of quite erroneous arguments, or at best quite unconvincing ones due to noise over load. The skeptical review seems to be a bit of a change of pace in this respect, but the first article i found, that i did honestly beleive would attack my point, did seem rather weak. There are hundreds of the things, so i asked for something good and to the point, rather than having to search throught the whole list. I simple lack the time to read all of them. Frankly i have better things to do than wade through piles of nonesense on the off chance i hit upon something that is actualy useful.

I am interested in seeing the arguments against the truth of the bible, i am iterested in lots of this sort of thing. I just feel what i have found so far tends to come up a bit short. I'm notbeing deliberatly difficult, i am simply reporting honestly.

Jason

svensky

Ex-preacher,

I will have a closer look at the events you mention. Thank you for beinging them to my attention. Now wee seem to be getting some where.

Jason

svensky

Grand Nubian,

Since when was name calling a legit rhetorical tactic ?

Besides, I was merely making an observation about standards of evidence and what will and wont be accepted by either side.

If you have something constructive to add, that can be said without resorting to name calling then feel free, if you dont, well then dont.

Jason

ex-preacher

Still, inerrantist Christians end up at the same point: claiming that their holy book is without error.

<STRONG> I understand. But you must understand that this makes it extremely difficult to show you the contradictions, since I don't know what qualifies for you.

<STRONG> Agreed. One exercise I engaged in before I left Christianity was to compare the books of Samuel and Kings to Chronicles. I found about 200 obvious contradictions plus other serious moral problems.

<STRONG> I was a Christian for about 35 years. I earned a B.A. in Bible (4.0), a Master of Divinity (a 3 year program), and a Doctor of Ministry. I was a minister in a conservative church for 12 years and a professor of Bible for 3 years. I studied my way out of Christianity over about a 2 year period of intense study. I am now a convinced atheist. I completley reject your assertion that nihilism is a necessary attendant of atheism. Certainly some atheists are nihilists, but the vast majority are not. Perhaps you need to study atheism and humanism a bit more deeply.

<STRONG> I guarantee you that if you are committed ahead of time to resolving all contradictions, you will never see one. If you are honestly open to the possibility to seeing them, you will find them on almost every page. You don't anyone's list. Just open up a Bible (preferably two). Compare Samuel/Kings to Chronicles or the Gospels to each other for a start.

<STRONG> I will agree that I am more predisposed to acknowledging a contradiction, while you are more predisposed to finding a solution. While we each have bias, I believe that a truly honest effort can bring us to agreement. I will agree, for instance, that many of the lists contain bogus contradictions. I think these often do more harm than good since Christians are able to easily resolve them and assume that all the contradictions are easily resolved. One of the worst I've seen is on the American Atheist site. I prefer briefer lists that contain more powerful examples. Here's one for you: Compare what Jesus said in Mark 2:25-26 to 1 Samuel 21. Jesus makes at least 3 major mistakes. Not to mention the fact that he is advocating situational ethics.

svensky

Thank you ex-preacher, i a voice of reason.

I will have a look at the verses you mention. I will give it some thought. Thank you for being honest and friendly. Courtesy is something i have often found lacking in these discussions. Thank you for extending that to me. I'll get back when i've had a chance to look.

Thank you for agreeing with my point, long pages of "contradictions" that are 90% bogus dont really do anything to convince anyone.

Incidentally, i'm sure not everybodies experience of athiesm is nihilistic, but mine certianly was. I do find the assertion that athiesm doesn't automatically wind up a nihilism to be bogus, but my own experience is a powerful guide. I cant see how you end up anywhere else, so if you have any comment on that i would welcome that as well.

Jason