Autonemesis

No, I said that this contradiction cannot be resolved by appeal to the Bible alone. You have to make up stuff that isn't in the Bible to resolve the contradiction, which you did.

I don't. Christians who propose Biblical inerrancy do. Christians who say everything we ever need to know about living is in the Bible say that. Christians who say the Bible contains no error hold that position. I certainly don't. I am not a Christian or a theist for that matter. I don't believe the Bible to be anything more than a hodge-podge of old myths. Therefore I personally, do not hold it to a very high standard at all. It is what it is. But it is NOT what its believers say it is.

Stop telling me what I would and would not do, and then attacking me for it. It's very annoying.

Not at all, you agree with me. The Bible is incomplete and contradictory, until you apply analysis that appeals to other sources. This is a much more tenable position than the inerrancy position most often advanced by Christians. But I still find nothing in it that makes me think I ought to pay attention to it as anything but a cultural influence.

Butters

Thank you for the info, Reasonable doubt, it was very helpfull!

Geoff Hudson

I thought priests wern't supposed to posess land.

Geoff

Ron Garrett

Mr Vanderzygen:

You began your post on this thread with the following diatribe:

None of this has anything to do with the substance of the account, but is obviously a block quotation of someone else's attempt to discredit anyone who assert Biblical errancy which you haven't the integrity to cite and credit.

This does not deal with the specific contradiction cited. It is a standalone polemic assailing the intelligence, honesty and integrity of skeptics and asserting they are not just wrong, but have suspect motives, which we all know what Christians generally say those would be. We're "evil."

So I was responding to your diatribe, which makes the following generalizations without offering any proof:

1. People who insist on a large number of Bibilical discrepancies are immediately suspect.

Of course, since in the Christian world you are of the faith or a servant of Satan, so is it even possible to have an intelligent conversation? Since I am an agent of evil and I am immediately suspect is a Vanderzygen actually going to consider anything I post anyway? I do not say this of Christians in general.

2. Liberal and Conservative scholars have concluded the discrepancies claim is without substance and so these suspicious skeptics must have other insincere motives.

Name names. I suspect you think B.B. Warfield is a liberal. I actually suspect you haven't a clue who he is. I also suspect you think Beverly LaHaye is a scholar.

3. The fact that they insist on these discrepancies is clear indication that they have not studied the scriptures carefully,neither text, nor the commentaries.

I did my graduate work at an ATS accredited graduate seminary which is non-denominational, but very orthodox, and not at all liberal in the Harvard Divinity sense. What's your training V?

4. The so-called contradictions are not conclusive.

While I concede I've seen objections raised that are more misunderstandings than anything else, the substantive difficulties are legion and the answers mostly speculative and inventive, and the number of modern scholars teaching at accredited institutions who concede these difficulties is far and away in the majority, even in the seminaries, which is why modern fundmantalists call them "cemataries" and ultra-fundie Bible schools make faculty sign a "Statement of Faith" outlining the dgma and doctirne they will promote and defend.

5. The skeptic does not have strong knowledge of the Bible.

So far I would say my knowledge of the Bible exceeded yours by my fourth Birthday. I already know from your posts that your going to popular fundie sources for your material. For instance, in your block attack on skeptics, can you list even one article by the author that has been published in an academic journal as opposed to Christianity Today?

6. The skeptic overlooks subtleties of the text.

Let try the reverse mere assertion. The believer is intellectually incapable of grasping subtleties.

7. Th skeptic ignores that the narratives may be complementary.

The Death of Judas stories are not complimentary. The details directly conflict.

8. The suspect skeptic applies a different standard to ancient texts than to the Bible.

The believer applies the assumption of infallibility a priori to the Bible and assumes a priori that all other sources are suspect and tainted.

9. The skeptic invents their own standards for perfection.

I use the same standard conservative Christians use. I use the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. The text does not meet the standards.

10. The skeptic has the audacity to insist the all-wise god conform to their own non-all-wise standards.

My standard is the commonly accepted English usage of contradiction. Inconsistency, discrepancy. Is is impossible for both of the Judas accounts to be true. They are thus in contradiction by definition. It is impossible for both paternal geneologies of Jesus to be true, which is why Origen attempted to argue that both were not paternal, though the text is clear in this regard. You strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

11. The skeptic insists every detail be recorded and all accounts be identical.

Not by any means. But I do insist that if both accounts are claimed to be true, let alone divinely revealed, they must be consistent, they may be complementary, but they cannot directly conflict in detail and both be true.

You began this post by a lengthy attack on the intellect and qualifications of skeptices as well as their motives. I responded to this. After beginning with insult and condescension you can scarcely cry foul when I respond to your polemic. There are not two sets of rules here where you get to engage in polemics and insist we play nice.

Frankly I am glad you're here. You represent the very dregs of Youth for Christ/Campus Crusade apologetics and I expect multiple deconversions to result from your efforts.

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Ron Garrett ]</p>

Geoff Hudson

Please can we keep to the topic - the squabbles spoil things for others.

Will someone take-up my previous remark.

Geoff

Vanderzyden

Look Baidarka,

There is no straw man until a demonstration is provided. Perhaps you think that I don't have experience in dealing with skeptics. Perhaps you also think that I am not capable of being critical myself. Well, I welcome you to attempt to show that you are correct.

You have not shown my arguments to be weak. You have not refuted one single point that I have made. In fact, you seem to be intent on is catching me in some mistake, quoting me at length as you do.

This approach of yours has all the marks of someone who has no interest in the truth, but rather seeks to reassure themselves of their comfortable unsubstantiated beliefs.

Now, do you have anything to say in reply to my comments on your additional contradiction?

Vanderzyden

Vanderzyden

K,

I have already admitted that more detail would be nice. I have written it twice, now. This is the third time.

Your analogy is generally inapplicable since the Bible is not a newspaper. In addition, a newspaper would not report things in this way nor in this terse format. And again, we must identify the primary character and the primary even in the account: in the chapters containing the Judas accounts, he is NOT the primary character and the main event is NOT his mode of death; in the newspaper, John is the primary character and the primary activity in question is his death.

Also, it would seem that you are implying that I am attempting to be manipulative. Before I jump to my own conclusion, perhaps you should tell me what you mean by "extra-manipulative". Also, you should be precise in explaining what you see has been manipulated.

Furthermore, if you are going to make bold claims like "contradictory" or "distorted" or "deceptive", then you must justify them if you would hope to be persuasive.

Vanderzyden

Vanderzyden

So, you presume me to be just one of those "Christians". Why is that? Did I say the Bible was "inerrant"? Precisely what does that mean, anyway?


Well, I am certain that you hold this particular belief unjustifiably. If we take your lack of substantive response in this particular matter to be support for your poor view of the Bible, then it is highly probable that you have not examined the basis which underlies your general claims.

Indeed, it is what it is. But, you've got to read it. If you maintain unwarranted presuppositions that prevent you from reading it and considering what might be true (instead of what you want to be true), then it is no surprise that you hold the views that you describe here.

So, I'm not telling you "how you are". I am simply making observations from the clear indications that you are giving in your posts.


Vanderzyden

Vanderzyden

Good point!

I realize that you may not intend this, but I thank you for the additional support. Think about it for just a few minutes and you will realize why.


Vanderzyden

K

Vanderzyden:

I appreciate you withholding judgement on my use of words pending elaboration on my part. I never meant to imply that you were being manipulative of deceitful.

When I talked about extra-textual manipulation, I was simply referring to the fact that in order to make the two stories fit together, the mental images suggested by the two stories had to be manipulated without any suggestion from the text in order to resolve the differences. Therefore, in my example, the car in one version is manipulated to be called a bed and the viscious attack is manipulated to be called death during a peaceful sleep.

I also meant to imply that the authors, not you, could possibly be deceitful. In my example again, calling a brutal homicide a death during a peaceful sleep would seem to indicate deception. It could also indicate a breakdown in the retelling of the story (although, that's a pretty big breakdown).

Your point about the Gospels not being newspapers and Judas not being the main character are noted. However, that doesn't remove the contradictions. If you want to argue the insignificance of the contradition, that's fine. I would tend to agree. But if you argue that there is no contradition, I think that's been demonstrated many times to be false.