Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ron Garrett · 10-08-2002, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
Whenever I encounter people who insist upon a large number of biblical discrepancies, I become suspect. My suspicion arises not from their disagreement over the major themes of the Bible. Rather, my concern is this: In modern times, following close inspection by many liberal and conservatives scholars, these skeptics continue to promote the supposed existence of pervasive errors or contradictions in the Bible. This is clear indication that the detractors have not studied carefully, neither the text itself or the commentaries.

This is mere assertion on your part, ad hominem, and provably false as any of the academically trained former theists here, myself included, can attest. My personal library takes up a large room and contains hundreds of commentaries from all perspectives, and I have read them all cover to cover, in addition to much of the holdings of the three Christian academic institutions I spent 20 years of my life at.

My experience, apparently unlike yours, includes face to face to face time with academics of known and acknowledged competence, as opposed to popular writers of the Dr. Walter Martin variety who have no earned credentials, or received their training at unaccredited Bible Colleges where free academic inquiry is actually prohibited by contract. 35 years of active Christian life brought me into contact with a mere handful of academics in the field of Biblical Literature that would seriously make your statements, and then only with tongue in cheek.

Quote:

If the Bible contains numerous genuine errors or contradictions, then it is no longer plausible that an all-wise God is behind it.

I concur. This began my own journey to agnosticism.

Quote:

Yes, we must not be afraid of admitting this possibility.

What utter hypocrisy!

Quote:

However, the so-called contradictions have not been found conclusive.

The fact that you fabricate, without any warrant from the text, a hypothetical explanation for how plainly opposing stories reflect the same event, does not make the example inconclusive. As I see it the text is completely conclusive. Of these two accounts each stands alone and independently. Neither requires the harmonization you invent. That is required by your mere assertion regarding the harmonized nature of the text, and not by the text itself. If you must invent new stories to harmonize stories that are complete of themselves, then the stories in the text are not hamrmonized to begin with. That should even be plain to someone with your superior knowledge.

Quote:

In fact, the skeptic (1) often does not have strong knowledge of the Bible, (2) overlooks subtleties in the text and the references, or (3) ignores the fact that different narrative perspectives are not necessarily in conflict, but may be complementary.

Why waste our time quoting an apologist's ad hominem in block.?

Quote:

The biblical skeptic must, in all fairness, apply the same analytical standards to the Bible as she does to other ancient texts.

The believer must in all fairness apply the same critical standards to Biblical evidence for their claim of divine revelation as they apply to the evidence against. You may not cavalierly invent details not in the text in order to conflate stories that don't jive with each other. Surely an all-knowing God would know that the two accounts don't match, just as we do, and would have taken care to insure the prefection of his own divinely transmitted record.

Quote:

The reader of the Bible must not invent her own standards of "perfection", nor require that a wise God meet all of her demands.

What a bunch of crap. This is the statement of devotional Bible reader who flim flams instead of studies. "Perfect" has an agreed meaning. It is not imposing my demands on a "wise God' to expect that such a God can get the details of his own incarnation and death straight.

Quote:

It's simply not reasonable to insist that every detail be recorded

Red Herring. No one does.

Quote:

, and that all accounts of the same events be identical (which would be cause for suspecting collusion)

We already know the Synoptics use common material. So do most accounts of Abraham Lincoln's life. The difference is no one claims that Lincoln biography is divine revelation or free of contrdiction.

Quote:

In fact, it is clear in all of Scripture that the reader will not be given everything; indeed, she will be given some critical information, and from that she must make our own decision.

The example being dealt with here is of two differing accounts of the same event. We are not dealing with an omission. We are dealing with two versions of Juda's death that don't jive and they are not mere difference of eye witnesses. One or both is in error, but no more than one can be correct, your gymnastics notwithstanding. The bulk of your post never deals with the conflict but babbles on about the rest of the account that is not in question.

If in the future you are going to post at length directly from some popular writer, please have the respect to reference the author and their credentials.

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Ron Garrett ]

Baidarka · 10-08-2002, 01:21 PM

Vanderzyden: "Tell me, Baidarka, are you Jewish, or an ethnic sympathizer? You seem highly defensive."

Man this guy burns me up!

Kosh · 10-08-2002, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Baidarka:
Vanderzyden: "Tell me, Baidarka, are you Jewish, or an ethnic sympathizer? You seem highly defensive."

Man this guy burns me up!

Just think about what his "witness" is doing for our cause....

Autonemesis · 10-08-2002, 01:51 PM

Like I said in the previous thread, the contradictions cannot be resolved without appeal to extra-Biblical sources, which Vanderzyden has done extensively in his apologetics

The Judas case at the very least puts to rest the question of whether the Bible should be taken literally. As Vanderzyden has demonstrated, the text must be interpreted using knowledge gleaned from other sources, in order to have any possibility of making some sort of sense out of it.

That it is demonstrated that the Bible cannot be taken literally, in turn calls into question many Biblical passages that believers - maybe not Vanderzyden, but most others - insist are a literal account of past events, such as the six-day creation, the flood, the Fall, and so forth.

Thanks for the presentation Vanderzyden. It was most helpful.

Vanderzyden · 10-08-2002, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ron Garrett:

...My personal library takes up a large room and contains hundreds of commentaries from all perspectives, and I have read them all cover to cover, in addition to much of the holdings of the three Christian academic institutions I spent 20 years of my life at....

...My experience, apparently unlike yours, includes face to face to face time with academics of known and acknowledged competence, as opposed to popular writers of the Dr. Walter Martin variety who have no earned credentials, or received their training at unaccredited Bible Colleges where free academic inquiry is actually prohibited by contract. 35 years of active Christian life brought me into contact with a mere handful of academics in the field of Biblical Literature that would seriously make your statements, and then only with tongue in cheek....

Are you trying to impress me, Ron? All those credentials, and yet you have nothing SUBSTANTIVE in reply.

I asked you to stop with your disrespectful behavior. You are wasting our time. If you reply again in this thread, please make it very clear in the first few sentences that your business is to refute my assessment. Otherwise, I will disregard it entirely.

MODERATORS: can we persuade Mr. Garrett to cease his divise tactics?

Vanderzyden

Vanderzyden · 10-08-2002, 01:58 PM

Baidarka,

Tell me, from where does this quote originate?

Quote:

Originally posted by Baidarka:
Vanderzyden: "Tell me, Baidarka, are you Jewish, or an ethnic sympathizer? You seem highly defensive."

It comes from the <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000562&p=6" target="_blank">thread</a>, "Why wouldn't Jesus have written anything" right here in this forum.

Now, did you complain about it in your last reply in that thread? No. Is there anything intrinsically wrong with this question? No.

Then why are attempting to be divisive, along with Mr. Garrett?

My request was that you respond to the main point of this thread. Please honor the rules of the forum, along with my reasonable request, and stick to the main topic.

Do you have anything more to say about the "Judas contradiction"?

Vanderzyden

Vanderzyden · 10-08-2002, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kind Bud:
Like I said in the previous thread, the contradictions cannot be resolved without appeal to extra-Biblical sources, which Vanderzyden has done extensively in his apologetics

A few questions:

1. And those extra-biblical sources would be what, precisely?

2. What strictly apologetic technique has been employed?

3. Do you still maintain that these accounts are contradictory? On what basis?

Vanderzyden

Vibr8gKiwi · 10-08-2002, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
3. Do you still maintain that these accounts are contradictory? On what basis?

(Kiwi stares with incredulity). Um, on the basis that they are inconsistent with each other and require you to invent a nonsensical compound event that is not described by either accounting.

On what basis do you think you've resolved the inconsistency?

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Vibr8gKiwi ]

Grumpy · 10-08-2002, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth:
The only way the two could be reconciled... is if Judas hung himself by his feet.

The image conjured up by this suggestion is about as silly as the rationalization that Jesus must have ridden into Jerusalem on a donkey and its colt, circus-style, simply because Matthew says so (21:7 "They brought the donkey and the colt, placed their cloaks on them, and Jesus sat on them.") Unless this is supposed to mean that the disciples put more than one cloak on the donkey, and that Jesus sat on them, the cloaks. Even if it's just bad grammar, it's still inaccurate.

But that's not what this thread is about.

Mageth · 10-08-2002, 02:58 PM

1. And those extra-biblical sources would be what, precisely?

Thin air?

2. What strictly apologetic technique has been employed?

Invention? Embellishment?

3. Do you still maintain that these accounts are contradictory? On what basis?

Um, yes, because they contradict each other.
If they weren't contradictory you wouldn't have to invent embellishments out of thin air to try to reconcile them, would you?

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

10-08-2002, 01:21 PM	#12
Baidarka Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 590	Vanderzyden: "Tell me, Baidarka, are you Jewish, or an ethnic sympathizer? You seem highly defensive." Man this guy burns me up!

10-08-2002, 01:51 PM	#14
Autonemesis Contributor Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: I've left FRDB for good, due to new WI&P policy Posts: 12,048	Like I said in the previous thread, the contradictions cannot be resolved without appeal to extra-Biblical sources, which Vanderzyden has done extensively in his apologetics The Judas case at the very least puts to rest the question of whether the Bible should be taken literally. As Vanderzyden has demonstrated, the text must be interpreted using knowledge gleaned from other sources, in order to have any possibility of making some sort of sense out of it. That it is demonstrated that the Bible cannot be taken literally, in turn calls into question many Biblical passages that believers - maybe not Vanderzyden, but most others - insist are a literal account of past events, such as the six-day creation, the flood, the Fall, and so forth. Thanks for the presentation Vanderzyden. It was most helpful.

10-08-2002, 02:58 PM	#20
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	1. And those extra-biblical sources would be what, precisely? Thin air? 2. What strictly apologetic technique has been employed? Invention? Embellishment? 3. Do you still maintain that these accounts are contradictory? On what basis? Um, yes, because they contradict each other. If they weren't contradictory you wouldn't have to invent embellishments out of thin air to try to reconcile them, would you?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.