Herman Hedning

Matt 28:5-6 and John 20:16-17

Sven

He did. And Peter agreed with this straightforward interpretation of the passage.

Thanks for pointing out a contradiction yourself.

Aravnah Ornan

The many conflicting plans of salvation. I believe that this is the toughest because it affects the key message of the Bible.

funinspace

I consider the Flood the toughest contradict. Not in the sense of the Bible against itself, but against reality. The Bible is quite clear about the timeline from Adam to Noah to Abraham in Genesis 5:3-28 (1056 years) and 5:32,11:10-26 (897 years). A reality that many literalists seam to want to obfuscate. One cannot rationally argue that these were periods, not father to son, over and over again. When passages clearly state when X was A old, Y was born one after another. If one argues for such wildly varient interpretations of such simple and clear words, then one can reconstruct any part of the Bible any way one wants to make for your desired results. And language doesn't have any meaning. Therefore, literalism has no meaning when such methods are employed.

The period from Abraham to Jacob entering Egypt to begin the 430 years (Ex 12:40) of Egyptian life can be clearly traced in the same manner. Again, where passages clearly state when X was A old, Y was born. The only difficult one is when Joseph is born, but thru carefully searching thru, the specific dates still can be determined. This period lasted 270 years.
Abraham has Isaac at 100 Gen 21:5
Isaac has Jacob at 60 Gen 25:26
Jacob enters Egypt at 130 Gen 47:9
Total: 290

So following the Bible literally, one ends up with the first estimation that's required, when did the 40 years of wandering end and the invasion begin. 1170BC (though there are some newer archeological arguments for making this date about a 100 years younger) is what others have culled from the miscellaneous corners searching from King Solomon back to the invasion. I find that an acceptable number. So that puts Jacob entering Egypt in 1610BC (1170 + 40 + 400). And it places the Birth of Abraham at 1900BC. And that puts the flood at 2297BC if you want to insist on the literal life.

Therefore, the flood would have been roughly 2400-2200BC. Which is impossible, since we have uninterrupted written records of both the Sumerian and Egyptian civilizations going hundreds of years beyond this time. Going further, there is very excellent science that can accurately look at the records of the ice caps in Greenland going back 30,000 years; and coral reef records from the Australian Great Barrier Reef and others, going back almost 100,000 years. And both records would be devastated by anything approaching a world wide flood. It would not be missed, overlooked, or misunderstood. So not only could in not happen when the Bible claims due to human records, but it could not have happened at all in any way resembling the tale as told, due to the earths records. Unless of course, if there was a conspiracy of deities? Therefore, either Genesis 5:20-28 is factually wrong, or Noah's flood is a fable, or the gods are having fun with us, or the reality of human sensory perception has no meaning.

DK

Mageth

To me, perhaps the toughest "contradiction" in the Bible is the contrast between the various personalities of God (specifically El and YHWH) and the way God and human interactions with God changes through the Tanakh (e.g. starting as an interactive, often physical presence and, by the end, virtually disappearing, becoming a remote and detached deity, not even being mentioned in Esther). In the beginning, God maintains man. By the end, man maintains God. And the contrast between the disappearing God of the OT and the reappearing, new version of God of the NT, complete as three persons (at least according to later doctrinal interpretation). And considering all that in the light of some theists' claims that God is "unchanging."

And then there's Job, IMO the toughest book in the Bible. Satan in God's presence, when it's claimed by some Christians that God cannot be in the presence of evil. God wagering with Satan with Job as their puppet. Etc etc.

jbernier

This one is interesting. I think that the rest are really red herrings because they are only a problem for those who are dogmatically committed to inerrantist and literalist readings of the scripture - which I have argued against at length in the "Why assume inerrancy?" thread (thus I need not repeat my objections to such readings here).

First, question here: What is "salvation"? There is an overwhelming tendency to assume that salvation is primarily, perhaps even solely, about the personal salvation of the soul doomed to eternal damnation and, through this salvation, the granting of an one-way ticket to heaven. This salvation is exclusively individual.

Problem: The Biblical texts seem largely uninterested in this notion of "personal salvation." God's interactions with human beings are almost exclusively rooted out through his interactions with communities: Whether it be Israel in the Hebrew scriptures or the church in the New Testament. I think that contemporary Christians, particularly Protestants, immediately assume that any talk of redemption, salvation, etc., fits the "personal salvation" model; however, I think that most of these texts are about the practical experience of redemption within the context of those who call themselves people of God ("God" hearing meaning the Hebrew God, YHWH). For instance, in Paul, the reconciliation of the kosmos (which, in his thought, includes both the human and natural worlds) to God. He seems most concerned with how communities of Christian believers can live out their lives together in Christian community. This possibility of reconciliation between God and human on one hand and human and human on the other seems to be at the root of Biblical theology (both Hebrew scriptures and New Testament). Thus one should not be surprised if "salvation" is articulated or envisioned in a variety of ways; just as communities of humans are diverse so will be those things which hold them together, draw them together, etc. - thus so will those things that allow their mutual reconciliation to one another.

The almost total neglect of the social dimensions of salvation in contemporary evangelical thought is precisely the reason why this contradiction becomes a problem. However, I think that it is only a problem because of the dogmatic demands made upon the Biblical text by certain groups of people.

Mageth

How exactly are my observations on the changing concept of God portrayed in the Tanakh and the NT a "red herring" and "only a problem for those who are dogmatically committed to inerrantist and literalist readings of the scripture"?

funinspace

Yes, most would be a red herring for the errantist. But that was probably the assumption of the thread's initiator. You find a living/dynamic Christian theology compatible with your faith, that's fine. I don't quibble with your view much, and I find it much healthier for society as well. In the US, we have lots of fundies/inerrantists, that occupy the limelight. There are people running around in my parts wanting to put up statues of a brutally murdered open homosexual, stating that he went to hell for his life/values. And 90% of our Christian groups don't give a damn about such vulgar behavior. We have Pat Roberson virtually praying for the ill health of our Supreme Court Judges because he doesn't like their decisions about US law. And no Christians challange his behavior. These are the types that I find offensive and I tend to try to challenge, for what I see it lending support to. I spent too many years in the fundy environment. Looking back I realized that I saw many things that fed and supported dysfunctional people. It's also interesting that many people will claim to not really be a literalist, but when push comes to shove they will defend every last verse literally. Or they will spin and bob so hard, you can hardly tell what they are saying.

DK

Godless Wonder

And if I'm not mistaken, Antarctic ice cores going back 740,000 years.

jbernier

I will keep my answer short as it will essentially be summary of a series of posts I have made recently on the "Why assume inerrancy?" thread.

Basically, I object to the idea that knowledge of God needs to be static - i.e. that since God is unchanging so must our knowledge of God be unchanging. Instead I suggest that Christian theology would be better understood as a dialogic process in which Christians engage with each other, the Biblical text and other aspects of the Christian tradition - in short, theology as dynamic practice rather than theology as static doctrine.

This idea of theology as dynamic and dialogic means that changes in conceptions of God are not a problem for my conception of theology - quite the opposite, my conception of theology thrives on precisely those sorts of change as they are rooted in the ongoing dialogue about and with God. In short, I see the scripture largely as the history of the Jewish and Christian communities' (depending upon which scripture you are speaking of) conversations about and with God, not once and for all definitive statements about the nature of God.

For myself, then, the notion of "contradictions" is irrelevant because it assumes that everything should line up in a neat little package. But life - and relationship - is not like that; life - and relationship - is messy and complicated. Why should the Christian expect any less of his or her relationship with God?