Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 08-18-2007, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

It is interesting that no Christians have made any posts in this thread.

It is neither interesting nor surprising. The ones you obviously want to respond (ie inerrantists) don't believe there are contradictions while the others don't find their faith challenged by them.

Johnny Skeptic · 08-18-2007, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundulf

OK, you wanted something from a Christian:

1. That predestination and genuine free will can coexist.

2. That God commands that we find satisfaction in him alone and refrain from sin, but when he found one human who was sinless, and satisfied in God alone, God said, "This is not good."

3. That God tells people to trust him and love him no matter what, and then he goes and inspires King David to write a Psalm, which God intended to be a model prayer for other believes to follow, that closes in saying, "God, would you please leave me alone for a few minutes, so that I can have just a little peace before I die..."

I could probably come up with plenty more.

DISCLAIMER: Of course, I do not find these genuine, bona fide contradictions, but deep paradoxes that demonstrate to me how deep and genuinely real the Bible is in dealing with life, and pointing out that it demonstrates a view of life that is complex, deals with the enormous complexity and vastness of human experience, and demonstrates a God who desires genuine relationship, not simple robotic obedience - and one that embraces concepts that do not fit easily into my head. If the Bible is inspired, by a mind infinitely beyond me, then I ought to expect plenty of things therein that are totally beyond my comprehension, while I can yet find no genuine contradiction.

All of that is fine expect for "If the Bible is inspired.......," to which I will add "If God inspired all of the originals......." I am ready to discuss those two "ifs" whenever and wherever you want to. A good place to discuss these issues would be at that GRD Forum in my thread that is titled "Are there any inerrantists at this forum?" I believe that my post #85 is my best post in that thread.

Timetospend · 08-18-2007, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gullwind

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timetospend

It is not clear what kind of post would be beneficial or appropriate for this thread. I found it interesting to see what folks chose. As I read through them, I ticked off reconciliations in my mind. However, posting those reconciliations would not likely help anyone, only cause a lot of commotion without much value. Presumably the posters know how these can be reconciled but have rejected them. The criteria for rejection is also always interesting, as it tends to range anywhere from it is impossible to "no reasonable person would accept it."

Thanks,

Of course there are reconciliations. The question is whether the reconciliations make more sense than accepting a simple error.

For example, the difference in Ahaziah's age between II Kings and II Chronicles is easily explained as a simple scribal error. However, I have discussed this with inerrantists who cannot accept a scribal error, because that opens the possibility of other errors. They have to accept a complicated explanation about two kings with the same name, same mother, same father and same grandfather who reigned at different times, one of who did not become king until years after his father, even though the bible doesn't mention anyone else reigning in between.

You can always reconcile a discrepancy, but often the discrepancy has a far simpler explanation - albeit one that does not support your beliefs.

I would agree that Ahaziah's age was 22, and that the Masoretic text has a scribal error in 2 Chron.

I would also agree that reconciling any discrepancy is usually possible (assuming that the author of the discrepancy is not around to confirm that it really was a discrepancy). Of course, it is just as easy to find difficulties where none exist.

I guess that the disagreement is in whether it is possible to know that your belief is true.

Thanks,

Toby Beau · 08-18-2007, 11:42 AM

Matthew's Account of the empty tomb and resurrection appearances (Matt 28)

* 2 Women go to the grave (28:1) [contradicts Mark, Luke and John]
* Stone is still in place over the tomb (28:2) [contradicts Mark, Luke and John]
* Guards are at the tomb, faint from fright (27:65-66, 28:4) [contradicts Mark, Luke and John]
* An (1) angel appears and rolls the stone away (28:2) [contradicts Mark, Luke and John]
* Jesus first meets the women and tells them to tell the brothers (28:9-10) [contradicts I Corinthians and Luke]

Plenty more where that came from!
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfvpb73w_89chngzj

Johnny Skeptic · 08-18-2007, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Well, lots of Christians have written articles and books with reconcialiations that have convinced some people, so you are wrong that "reconciliations would not likely help anyone."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timetospend

Of course, you are correct. However, I was thinking of the people most likely to read this site, such as yourself.

But surely there are some people who read this site who are undecided, and some nominal Christians who need their faith strengthened. If you are not trying to convince anyone of anything, why are you making posts at this forum? In addition, debating skeptics in this thread might give you the practice that you need when prospective Christians as you questions about Bible contradictions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

If you had the power of a God, and wanted people to believe that you exist, and wanted people to know what you wanted them to do with their lives, I assume that you would partly use lots of empirical, tangible evidence which would include lots of tangible, personal appearances, and demonstrations of tangible miracles. After all, in the NIV, Acts 14:3 says "So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders." And that was even though the Holy Spirit had supposedly come to the church, and even though there were supposedly thousands of still living eyewitnesses would had seen Jesus perform miracles, and hundreds of still living eyewitnesses who had seen Jesus after he rose from the dead. My word, how many more confirmations should have been needed with all of the other available evidence?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timetospend

I think that people are incredibly capable of disregarding information that disagrees wth their belief system.

Are you saying the God is not able to provide more evidence that would convince more people to become Christians?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timetospend

For example, I love my cash credit card. I try to convert any purchasing that I do so that I use it because every month I get a benefit from those buys. Of course, each month I pay the balance on it; so using it is like getting free money. Why would greedy corporate America offer such a nice gift to me? Because so many people have large credit card debts, they make money on average for each cash credit card that they deploy, despite people like me. Yet, there is no dearth of evidence concerning the downside of credit-card debt.

Well sure there is. Everyone knows that credit card companies only make money if people do not pay off their balances on time. On the other hand, there is no dearth of evidence that heaven and hell exist, or even a small amount of credible evidence that heaven and hell exist. If heaven and hell exist, a loving, moral God would provide empirical, tangible evidence that they exist.

Are you an inerrantist?

Gwen · 08-18-2007, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Well sure there is. Everyone knows that credit card companies only make money if people do not pay off their balances on time. On the other hand, there is no dearth of evidence that heaven and hell exist, or even a small amount of credible evidence that heaven and hell exist. If heaven and hell exist, a loving, moral God would provide empirical, tangible evidence that they exist.

Pssst..."dearth" means "lack". So there is no dearth of evidence that credit card debt is bad--everybody knows it--but if there is not "even a small amount of credible evidence that heaven and hell exist", there is a dearth of that kind of evidence.

Roland · 08-18-2007, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheos

As a general rule I like numeric contradictions. Numbers don't lie and can't be explained away.

Matthew makes a big deal about 14 + 14 + 14 = Number of generations from Abraham to David, David to Babylonian Captivity, Babylonian Captivity to Jesus. But I Chronicles 3 lists 4 additional "generations" that Matthew ignores in order to come up with his magical 14's. Even Matthew's own list only adds up to 41 generations (14+14+14=42).

Mark 1 says that immediately after he was baptized Jesus went into the wilderness and was tempted by Satan for 40 days. John 1 says that the day after he got baptized (and the dove descended, as detailed also in Mark) Jesus was walking around among them and called his first two disciples, Peter and Andrew). The next day he called Philip and Nathaniel. On the 3rd day he attended a wedding in Cana of Galilee where he turned water into wine.

But I guess my overall favorite contradiction is not numeric at all. It's the silly little lie Jesus told in John 7:8 "I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come". But two verses later it says "But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret."

Black is White. Believe it or perish.

I used to like that second contradiction, too, but I'm not really sure it IS a contradiction in the technical sense of the term because John doesn't actually record Jesus' baptism by John the B. It just has John pointing Jesus out as he walks by and saying that he SAW the dove descending upon him but not pinpointing when that happened, so I suppose someone could argue that this scene happened AFTER Jesus returned from the wilderness.

Timetospend · 08-18-2007, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fr. Gottisttot

I'm particularly fond of the first one I ever found, on my own when I was still a bible-thumper. I was in the midst of reading the four gospels for my theology class when I noticed that one gospel (Matthew 12:30) had Jesus saying "All who are not with me are against me." and then another (Mark 9:40 and later Luke 9:50) had him saying "All who are not against me are with me." That was the very first step on my road to atheism.

My apologies to Fr. Gottisttot, but I wanted to use this note as an illustration of the lack of efficacy in countering contradictions as pertaining to belief in God. Unfortunately, I will have to leave in a few minutes and might not have adequate time to respond to any responses to this post or will be able to respond only slightly.

In an exchange with Johnny Skeptic, I made a comment along the lines that I do not think that countering contradictions would have much value concerning belief in God.

My contention is that one must first believe in God. Belief in inerrant scriptures makes absolutely no sense unless someone believes in the God of the Bible. While one's view of the Bible might help or hinder belief in God, discussion of contradictions will likely only deepen one's respect or contempt for the Bible, not convert someone.

First, let's look at the three references that Fr. Gottisttot provides:
Matt 12:30a
30 Whoever is not with me is against me,
NRSV
Mark 9:40
40 Whoever is not against us is for us.
NRSV
Luke 9:50
But Jesus said to him, "Do not stop him; for whoever is not against you is for you."
NRSV

While originally I did not intent to comment on any of these most-liked "contradictions," the answer to this one is relatively simple. Although a little most complex in language than in the original post, the words of these can be fulfilled rigorously without contradiction if all humanity can be divided into two camps:
-Those who are for Jesus
-Those who are against Jesus.
For what it is worth, my take on these verses is that it proposes null set of people who are partially with Jesus and partially against him.

I have mostly ignored context for this for simplicity (although I think that context would speak for this point as well). If Fr. Gottistott agreed with the above, would he backtrack from atheism since apparently this "contradiction" caused him to take the first step to it?

Regardless of whether you agree with the reconciliation, and in this case you really should agree as this is logically rigorous, I do not think that anyone would think that Fr. Gottisttot would leave atheism because of this reconciliation.

Again, my point in this post is not to offer a reconciliation to a supposed contradiction. Instead it is to demonstrate how unuseful countering contradictions are for or against belief.

Again, also, apologies for using Fr. Gottisttot's post because of a discussion coming out of an exchange with Johnny Skeptic.

Thanks,

figuer · 08-18-2007, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timetospend

For what it is worth, my take on these verses is that it proposes null set of people who are partially with Jesus and partially against him.

I have no interest in discussing the validity of this take per se, rather, I would point out that the presence of such confussing language in the Bible, that requires such convoluted analysis to make sense, argues against it being a message from a god that desired to communicate effectively his message.

Johnny Skeptic · 08-18-2007, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Are you an inerrantist?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timetospend

I have never particularly cared for the word, which is why I did not answer your question the first time that you posed it. However, I do accept the inerrancy of the Bible in its original autograph.

Why is that? Is it your position that there are not any scribal or copyist errors in the Bible? If there were any errors in the Bible, how would you be able to make a comparison with your belief that the Bible in inerrant?

If a loving, moral God exists, surely he would have been able to inspire a book that was written much more clearly than the Bible was written. If the Bible had been written more clearly, lots of needless hatred, wars, doubt, and confusion could have been eliminated. In addition, copies of ancient texts could never nearly do as good a job of commincating God's will as he could himself, tangibly, in person, on a daily basis, via personal appearances all over the world.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-18-2007, 11:42 AM	#24
Toby Beau Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 43	Matthew's Account of the empty tomb and resurrection appearances (Matt 28) * 2 Women go to the grave (28:1) [contradicts Mark, Luke and John] * Stone is still in place over the tomb (28:2) [contradicts Mark, Luke and John] * Guards are at the tomb, faint from fright (27:65-66, 28:4) [contradicts Mark, Luke and John] * An (1) angel appears and rolls the stone away (28:2) [contradicts Mark, Luke and John] * Jesus first meets the women and tells them to tell the brothers (28:9-10) [contradicts I Corinthians and Luke] Plenty more where that came from! http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfvpb73w_89chngzj

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.