Freethought & Rationalism Archive

big d · 04-09-2002, 04:17 AM

Koyaanisqatsi, I can relate to wanting to jump up and confront the preacher -man would that blow people's minds! I was really confounded as to the weaknesses of his apologetics and how easy people just soaked it up ( I am even more amazed that I used to be one of those people!) I do so love it here at infidels.org. My brain is enjoying the exercise!

Big D

Atticus_Finch · 04-09-2002, 06:38 AM

With respect to the Greek manuscript evidence for the NT, I have found this cite to be helpful, <a href="http://netbible.org/netbible/index.htm." target="_blank">http://netbible.org/netbible/index.htm.</a> The earliest Greek manuscript evidence is the Beatty papyrus I46. It dates from 200 A.D. It contained 10 Pauline Epistles and Hebrews. In the same time frame is I45 which included all the canonical gospels.

I would like to engage the debate with respect to the "contradictions" within the scriptures. It is my position that the vast majority, if not all, of the apparent contradictions are just that, "apparent". If a fair interpretive process is used the contradictions go away. The fair interpretive process is as follows: When considering passages which appear to contradict each other, if there are two reasonable interpretations of the passages, one which makes them contradictory and one that doesn't, one should use the non-contradictory interpretation and thereby resolve the apparent contradiction.

Therefore, I invite skeptics to point out apparent contradictions in the bible. I will endeavor to explain them. I will admit up front, that I will most likely be overwhelmed with the number of posts in response and I will do my best to answer them. I doubt I will have much help from fellow believers. However, I challenge the skeptics in the audience to make an honest attempt to use the interpretive process I outlined above and see if you can work out some of the apparent contradictions yourself and post your answer. That should be interesting.

Regards,

Finch

hezekiah jones · 04-09-2002, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus_Finch:
It is my position that the vast majority, if not all, of the apparent contradictions are just that, "apparent".

Kind of like "design" in biological systems, you mean?

Quote:

The fair interpretive process is as follows: When considering passages which appear to contradict each other, if there are two reasonable interpretations of the passages, one which makes them contradictory and one that doesn't, one should use the non-contradictory interpretation and thereby resolve the apparent contradiction.

How is that fair? You're going to choose the "non-contradictory interpretation" every time. Anyway, carry on. You might want to start a new thread, beginning with the genealogy of Jesus.

<speling>

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiahjones ]

CX · 04-09-2002, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus_Finch:
With respect to the Greek manuscript evidence for the NT, I have found this cite to be helpful, <a href="http://netbible.org/netbible/index.htm." target="_blank">http://netbible.org/netbible/index.htm.</a> The earliest Greek manuscript evidence is the Beatty papyrus I46. It dates from 200 A.D. It contained 10 Pauline Epistles and Hebrews. In the same time frame is I45 which included all the canonical gospels.

I believe you mean P45 and P46. Firstly the Beatty Papyrii are not the earliest Greek MSS. P52 is the earliest. Secondly P45 is a bit later than P46 and dates solidly in the third century

Secondly neither P46 nor P45 are anything like complete. Whatever they originally contained is lost to history. At this point both are in terribly bad shape.

Quote:

P46
Location/Catalog Number

Dublin, Chester Beatty Library, P. Chester Beatty II; Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Inv. 6238
Contents

86 leaves (out of an original total of 104), containing portions of Romans 5:17-1 Thes. 5:28 (plus Hebrews, following Romans). The surviving leaves (most of which are somewhat damaged) contain Romans 5:17-6:3, 6:5-14, 8:15-25, 27-35, 8:37-9:32, 10:1-11, 11, 24-33, 11:35-15:9, 15:11-end (with 16:25-27 following chapter 15!); 1 Cor. 1:1-9:2, 9:4-14:14, 14:16-15:15, 15:17-16:22; 2 Cor. 1:1-11:10, 12-21, 11:23-13:13; Gal. 1:1-8, 1:10-2:9, 2:12-21, 3:2-29, 4:2-18, 4:20-5:17, 5:20-6:8, 6:10-18; Eph. 1:1-2:7, 2:10-5:6, 5:8-6:6, 6:8-18, 20-24; Phil. 1:1, 1:5-15, 17-28, 1:30-2:12, 2:14-27, 2:29-3:8, 3:10-21, 4:2-12, 14-23; Col. 1:1-2, 5-13, 16-24, 1:27-2:19, 2:23-3:11, 3:13-24, 4:3-12, 16-18; 1 Thes. 1:1, 1:9-2:3, 5:5-9, 23-28; Heb. 1:1-9:16, 9:18-10:20, 10:22-30, 10:32-13:25

The original contents of P46 are subject to debate. If the manuscript was indeed 104 pages long (and the quite numberings make it clear that it was intended to be so), there is no possible way it could have contained the Pastoral Epistles; the remaining space would have allowed inclusion of 2 Thessalonians but not much more. But, of course, scribes had to guess how many pages they would need in a single-quire codex. The Pastorals represent only a little more than 10% of the Pauline corpus, and an error of 10% in estimating the length of the codex is not impossible. Thus, while it seems fairly likely that P46 did not and was not intended to include the Pastorals, the possibility cannot be denied that they were included on additional leaves attached at the end.

Quote:

P45
Location/Catalog Number

Dublin, Chester Beatty Library, P. Chester Beatty I; Vienna, Austrian National Library, Pap. Vindob. G. 31974 (one leaf, containing Matt. 25:41-26:39)
Contents

P45 is surely in the worst condition of any of the substantial Biblical papyri. Even the surviving leaves (a small fraction of the original contents, estimated at 30 of 220 original leaves) are damaged; the most substantial pages are perhaps 80-90% complete, but many others are just small fragments. There are relatively few complete lines; many of the surviving leaves represent only about 20% of the width of the original manuscript. Therefore any list of verses included in the manuscript will make it seem more substantial than it really is; very many of these verses survive only in part (often very small part).

With that said, the verses represented at least partly in P45 are: Matt. 20:24-32, 21:13-19, 25:41-26:39; Mark 4:36-40, 5:15-26, 5:38-6:3, 6:16-25, 36-50, 7:3-15, 7:25-8:1, 8:10-26, 8:34-9:8, 9:18-31, 11:27-12:1, 12:5-8, 13-19, 24-28; Luke 6:31-41, 6:45-7:7, 9:26-41, 9:45-10:1, 10:6-22, 10:26-11:1, 11:6-25, 28-46, 11:50-12:12, 12:18-37, 12:42-13:1, 13:6-24, 13:29-14:10, 14:17-33; John 4:51, 54, 5:21, 24, 10:7-25, 10:31-11:10, 11:18-36, 43-57; Acts 4:27-36, 5:10-20, 30-39, 6:7-7:2, 7:10-21, 32-41, 7:52-8:1, 8:14-25, 8:34-9:6, 9:16-27, 9:35-10:2, 10:10-23, 31-41, 11:2-14, 11:24-12:5, 12:13-22, 13:6-16, 25-36, 13:46-14:3, 14:15-23, 15:2-7, 19-26, 15:38-16:4, 16:15-21, 16:32-40, 17:9-17.

It is possible that the codex originally contained other books (e.g. the Catholic Epistles); unlike many of the major papyri, it is not a single-quire codex, but rather uses gatherings of two leaves, meaning that it could have had many more leaves at the end.

All told, we have two leaves of Matthew, six of Mark, seven of Luke, two of John, and thirteen of Acts, with the leaves of Matthew being only the smallest fragments. The leaves of Mark and Acts are rather more substantial, but still badly damaged; those of Luke and John are relatively complete. The leaves are broad enough, and the single column of text wide enough, that these thirty leaves contain substantial amounts of text, but still only about 5% of the original contents.

Kenyon was of the opinion that the gospels were originally in the "Western" order Matthew, John, Luke, Mark, with Acts (and conceivably other material) following. Given the state of the manuscript, the fact that it used multiple quires, and the fact that it was brought to the west in pieces, this cannot be proved -- but Mark and Acts were discovered together, so it seems likely.

Suffice it to say that the Beatty Papyrii, though historically significant, are of little use for text criticism.

Quote:

I would like to engage the debate with respect to the "contradictions" within the scriptures.

I don't know about anyone else here, but I find such discussions fruitless. Biblical texts are open to a wide variety of interpretations. As such people who want to find contradictions will find them and people who want to explain away contradictions will do so.

I do take issue with this however:

Quote:

The fair interpretive process is as follows: When considering passages which appear to contradict each other, if there are two reasonable interpretations of the passages, one which makes them contradictory and one that doesn't, one should use the non-contradictory interpretation and thereby resolve the apparent contradiction.

This is a completely arbitrary standard predicated on a belief in the inerrancy of the texts. Can you provide a logical justification for this exegetical rule? A more appropriate framework is to look to the original documents to see what the texts actually say. Where there are errors there are errors, where there are not there are not. apologetic tap dancing to avoid errors is a nonrational position. These texts were written by fallible people and consequently are subject to the vagaries of human error.

Talulah · 04-09-2002, 07:19 AM

This might seem odd, but I am a bit encouraged by knowing that someone is attempting to prove the bible from outside sources and not just using internal proofs for its authenticity. The way I look at it, no matter how silly and wrong those proofs might be, the preacher is inviting a certain amount of critical thought. The people listening might possibly see the absurdness of his claims, while if he only used internal proof, those listening might feel less inclined to question their 'holy book.'

Talulah

big d · 04-09-2002, 07:19 AM

Okay Finch, who inspired David to take the census? Satan or God Himself?

FreeToThink · 04-09-2002, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus_Finch:
If a fair interpretive process is used the contradictions go away. The fair interpretive process is as follows: When considering passages which appear to contradict each other, if there are two reasonable interpretations of the passages, one which makes them contradictory and one that doesn't, one should use the non-contradictory interpretation and thereby resolve the apparent contradiction.

That's a rather interesting definition of "fair" you've got going there. So we should always give your holy book the benefit of the doubt? I wonder if you would be willing to extend that same benefit to the holy books of other religions? But wait, if we did that, then all religions would be, um, "true".

What a bunch of nonsense.

Atticus_Finch · 04-09-2002, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hezekiahjones:


How is that fair? You're going to choose the "non-contradictory interpretation" every time. Anyway, carry on. You might want to start a new thread, beginning with the genealogy of Jesus.

<speling>

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiahjones ]

It is fair because it is premised upon there being at least two REASONABLE interpretations. This is actually derived from a maxim of legal interpretation which is applied daily in the courtrooms of this country.

With respect to the genealogy of Christ, there are a number of excellent, reasonable explanations for this "apparent" contradiction. See <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06410a.htm" target="_blank">http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06410a.htm</a> which discusses them and candidly discusses the limitations of each.

Regards,

Finch

FreeToThink · 04-09-2002, 07:31 AM

Tell you what, why dont you give us the benefit of the doubt? Since the existence of God, Gods, Godzilla, whatever, is so much in doubt, why not just resolve that apparent contradiction by realizing that what you believe in is Santa Claus for adults?!

Atticus_Finch · 04-09-2002, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CX:


This is a completely arbitrary standard predicated on a belief in the inerrancy of the texts. Can you provide a logical justification for this exegetical rule? A more appropriate framework is to look to the original documents to see what the texts actually say. Where there are errors there are errors, where there are not there are not. apologetic tap dancing to avoid errors is a nonrational position. These texts were written by fallible people and consequently are subject to the vagaries of human error.

Are we talking about "errors" or "contradictions"? My response was regarding "contradictions" which I take to mean examples of two or more texts within the bible appearing to contradict one another. The only reason I wish to discuss this issue is because many on this site constantly state that it is "fact" that the bible contradicts itself. If they believe that then they should be willing, and able, to back it up. I am willing to take the challenge.

Regards,

Finch

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

04-09-2002, 04:17 AM	#11
big d Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Ohio Posts: 41	Koyaanisqatsi, I can relate to wanting to jump up and confront the preacher -man would that blow people's minds! I was really confounded as to the weaknesses of his apologetics and how easy people just soaked it up ( I am even more amazed that I used to be one of those people!) I do so love it here at infidels.org. My brain is enjoying the exercise! Big D

04-09-2002, 06:38 AM	#12
Atticus_Finch Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Missouri Posts: 392	With respect to the Greek manuscript evidence for the NT, I have found this cite to be helpful, <a href="http://netbible.org/netbible/index.htm." target="_blank">http://netbible.org/netbible/index.htm.</a> The earliest Greek manuscript evidence is the Beatty papyrus I46. It dates from 200 A.D. It contained 10 Pauline Epistles and Hebrews. In the same time frame is I45 which included all the canonical gospels. I would like to engage the debate with respect to the "contradictions" within the scriptures. It is my position that the vast majority, if not all, of the apparent contradictions are just that, "apparent". If a fair interpretive process is used the contradictions go away. The fair interpretive process is as follows: When considering passages which appear to contradict each other, if there are two reasonable interpretations of the passages, one which makes them contradictory and one that doesn't, one should use the non-contradictory interpretation and thereby resolve the apparent contradiction. Therefore, I invite skeptics to point out apparent contradictions in the bible. I will endeavor to explain them. I will admit up front, that I will most likely be overwhelmed with the number of posts in response and I will do my best to answer them. I doubt I will have much help from fellow believers. However, I challenge the skeptics in the audience to make an honest attempt to use the interpretive process I outlined above and see if you can work out some of the apparent contradictions yourself and post your answer. That should be interesting. Regards, Finch

04-09-2002, 07:19 AM	#15
Talulah Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Beautiful Colorado Posts: 682	This might seem odd, but I am a bit encouraged by knowing that someone is attempting to prove the bible from outside sources and not just using internal proofs for its authenticity. The way I look at it, no matter how silly and wrong those proofs might be, the preacher is inviting a certain amount of critical thought. The people listening might possibly see the absurdness of his claims, while if he only used internal proof, those listening might feel less inclined to question their 'holy book.' Talulah

04-09-2002, 07:31 AM	#19
FreeToThink Regular Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Florida Posts: 167	Tell you what, why dont you give us the benefit of the doubt? Since the existence of God, Gods, Godzilla, whatever, is so much in doubt, why not just resolve that apparent contradiction by realizing that what you believe in is Santa Claus for adults?!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.