WinAce

I'm just curious. What exactly would it take for you to admit there's a contradiction in the Bible? Is there anything so blatant and contradictory that you'd say "huh?" and abandon inerrancy instead of looking for a reconciliation, no matter how awkward?

Keep in mind that the mindset of "there can't be any contradictions" can be used to refute plot holes in anything, from the Qu'ran to Star Trek.

Spaz

lmao, that star trek site is hilarious, it does a good job of representing apologetics

Koyaanisqatsi

It would take the destruction of his belief structure, of course. His indoctrination would shatter. His world would open and he would at last be free, which is, of course, his conditioned hell.

In other words, it would take hell freezing over

MrDarwin

We've already been through all of this with Vanderzyden. If apologists can rationalize the two different accounts of Judas (what he did with the money he got for betraying Jesus, and how he died) then they can rationalize absolutely anything.

Magus55

What would it take? Prove God doesn't exist with 100% factual basis.

Gooch's dad

Hi, Magus55,

Would you mind elaborating a bit on the logic you're using there?

It certainly appears your position seems to be:

God might possibly exist

Therefore the bible cannot have any contradictions.


This isn't really what you're claiming, is it?

Cheers,

-Kelly

davidH

In answer to your Judas statement:

Matthew 27.

1. Judas gets 30 silver coins
2. Realises what he had done and wants to return the money.
3. Priests couldn't care less what he had done - Judas flings the money into the temple and leaves.
4. He went away and hung himself
5. Priests use the money to by the potter's field to use as a burial ground for foreigners.

Acts 1

1. With the reward Judas got, he bought a field.
2. There he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines fell out.

Firstly if the Bible is correct in everything that it says then:

The priests wouldn't accept 'blood money' for their own use. It was against the law to put it into the treasury, because of what it had been used to condemn an innocent man to death.

That field were Judas hung himself would have been considered cursed/defiled (Remember the whole of Jerusalem heard about it- the priests then bought the field in Judas' name for they couldn't consider the money as their own, so it was his money and hence the reason why it became a graveyard for foreigners.

I guess the biggest problem that is seen with this is not that Juads fell headlong - since he could well have fell after hanging himself, rather it is in that statement of Peter "Judas bought a field".

Looking at it from a different angle - did the priests buy the field?

If I have 10 dollars, and I give the $10 to my little brother and tell him to go down to the shop and get me $10 worth of sweets. He returns and gives me the sweets.

Who bought the sweets?

Sure my little brother paid for the sweets, but did he buy them?

The answer is that I bought them - because my money was paid, they are mine - I get them. My brother only acted as a messenger to get the money from my wallet to the shop.

There is a difference between paying and buying. If I pay for something, I have not necessarily bought it. eg. I pay for the flights for my sister, but it is she who has bought the tickets.

The person who buys something exchanges their money for something and therefore owns what they have bought. If you use my money to get something you can't say that you own it, it is still mine because you only paid my money.

So Peter is correct when he says that Judas bought the field

It wasn't the priests' money - it was Judas' - he bought the field, the priests only paid for it.

BadBadBad

I agree that there are a lot of folks out there that would see it that way, but probably there's a lot more that admit the Bible has problems. They can accept that in fact it's full of big problems. How many people still believe the stories in Genesis or Exodus are factually true? They still believe in christianity.

For atheists, the contradictions and errors support our beliefs. For christians, I don't get it. Stories about walking on water, casting devils into pigs, butchering women and children, parting the Red Sea, or any of the rest of it don't shatter their belief structure or discredit christianity in their mind. So why should conflicting stories of Genesis or Judas death be so disturbing? Why not just admit it? They take what they want and ignore the rest already. Why not just write off all the contradictions and errors along with what they already right off: atrocities, immorality, absurdities, injustice, etc. etc. etc?

Believe in your sky daddy, believe what you want out of the Bible, and just blame all the rest on the authors for just not getting it? We're talking about an infinite God here. Did you expect these mere mortals to get it, right it down, and preserve it perfectly for well over 2000 years? Is that reasonable?

Steven Carr

It is indeed and very silly it is too. Among other things, it means the human beings who chose what books went into the Bible could make no mistakes, and magically chose only works free of contradiction.

Strange that God could not make humans who did not go wrong, but can inspire those same humans to write error-free books, despite their haveing free will to make mistakes writing those books, or did God remove their free will to choose to err?

Magus55

It would take hell freezing over for an atheist to believe in and worship the Christian God, so whats the difference?

We are very much alike in that both are firm in their beliefs.