Freethought & Rationalism Archive

EthnAlln · 07-25-2006, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hallq

I'm looking for people's opinions on the top Biblical contradictions. Not just ones that lack plausible harmonizations, but ones which no amount of weasling will solve. The best one I know is Mark v. the other gospels on whether the women told anyone about the tomb. Anything where apologists invoke scribal error is also good. What else do people know of?

I made two very detailed posts on the thread "What fundamentalists cannot deny" (Nos. 103 and 124). This is an important contradiction since it lies at the very heart of the reason for having a Bible and indeed a church. I set Matthew 25:31–46, unambiguously stating the Arminian view that salvation is by works, against a few dozen other verses, some of which equally unambiguously state the Calvinist view that God has already decided whether you are saved, and there isn't anything you can do about it. (In these latter verses it is clearly stated that seeking to be saved is futile: either you are or you aren't, and it's God's free choice, not based on anything you did.)

Of course, none of this helps, as I know from a debate I'm having within that thread. When confronted with an irremediable contradiction, like a cornered octopus, the Christian squirts out a protective jet of clichés: the verses "complement" and "explain" each other, they've been "taken out of context", etc., etc.

Roland · 07-25-2006, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pastor's Nightmare

Another discrepancy between the two accounts is that there is one angel in the Matthew passage(Matthew 28), and there are two angels in the John passage(John 20).

As far as using lists of contradictions goes, keep in mind that many "contradictions" were fixed when the New International Version of The Bible was created. Thus, contradictions in The King James version of The Bible may not exist in the NIV Bible.

As far as weasling out of contradiction in the strict sense, there are thousands of possible ways to weasle out. Let me give you a few, and I'm sure you can come up with several more weasling mechanisms after reading these. Just remember that Christians are creative, and there eternal soul is at stake; so, they will think long and hard to get out of any contradictions you come up with. Sometimes it will become a group effort. Furthermore, the explanation only needs to be sufficiently good for them to believe it not you.

It is possible to say that John simply omitted the first conversation with the angel. Thus, the Bible is not errant. The book of John simply has an omission, which is filled by the Book of Matthew. Next, we can say that the angel in Matthew is simply one of the two angels mentioned in the book of John. Furthermore, there are two Marys. You can say stuff like John was describing what the first Mary saw, and Matthew was describing what the second Mary saw, etc. Next, keep in mind that a Christian will generally be a bit sloppy. They will stop once they have a plausibility argument. It may not stand up to scrutiny, but they will give you this pseudo-fallacious argument, and you will have to point out what is wrong with the argument. It is possible to go back and forth 20-30 times, and by the time you have gone through about 15 or so arguments back and forth, they will have forgotten what number 1 was, and they will run the same argument by you again. They're not trying to be difficult, they simply can't remember. Being exposed to an internal inconsistency in The Bible is a pretty traumatic experience for a Christian. It is kinda like someone telling you a bunch of stuff about string theory or low dimensional topology. Your mind just doesn't absorb it.

Very good points.

The reason that explanation doesn't work with Matthew is because he only mentions TWO people at the beginning of his account (the two Marys, unlike Mark and Luke who do say there were more people present). This is important because every time Matthew then uses the pronoun "they" in describing what happened, he MUST be referring to BOTH MARYS or the way he wrote the story makes no sense. Thus, if we follow his account, the angel told Mary M that Jesus had risen, which is in clear contradiction to John's account which states that Jesus himself revealed that fact to her.

Magdlyn · 07-25-2006, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pastor's Nightmare

As far as weasling out of contradiction in the strict sense, there are thousands of possible ways to weasle out. Let me give you a few, and I'm sure you can come up with several more weasling mechanisms after reading these. Just remember that Christians are creative, and there eternal soul is at stake; so, they will think long and hard to get out of any contradictions you come up with. Sometimes it will become a group effort. Furthermore, the explanation only needs to be sufficiently good for them to believe it not you.

This goes for Orthodox Jews as well. The Christians ain't got nothin' on the long centuries of rabbis overreading and using creative philology and creative historiography to make sense of conflicting traditions and laws. And they don't even have the NT to worry about, just the Torah, Psalms, Prophets and whatnot. That tradition is even apparent in the Tanakh itself, as several books reinterpret and rearrange and spin earlier books already.

It's amazing what hoops "faith" makes them all jump through. I'm really missing that gene. It's just bizarre to watch it from the outside.

EthnAlln · 07-25-2006, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

This goes for Orthodox Jews as well. The Christians ain't got nothin' on the long centuries of rabbis overreading and using creative philology and creative historiography to make sense of conflicting traditions and laws. And they don't even have the NT to worry about, just the Torah, Psalms, Prophets and whatnot. That tradition is even apparent in the Tanakh itself, as several books reinterpret and rearrange and spin earlier books already.

It's amazing what hoops "faith" makes them all jump through. I'm really missing that gene. It's just bizarre to watch it from the outside.

And if I understand correctly (from the novels of Chaim Potok), some Talmudists won't even admit the possibility of a copying error. Whatever is there now was intended to be there, so it's up to the present generation to reconcile it to logic and the rest of the text. This, I should imagine (not being a Talmudic scholar, or even a Jew) must lead to some truly bizarre scenarios.

EthnAlln · 07-25-2006, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fromdownunder

Any Biblical contridiction can be refuted (read: rationalised). I have even seen the pi = 3, the rabbit chewing it's cud and the clearly stated Joseph "who was Joseph's father?" refuted (read: rationalised).

For anybody who accepts the Bible as the literal unalterable word of God, a reason can be found. For any Christian who does not believe that a literal interpretation is essential, it does not matter, and for the rest of us...except for an intellectual mind game, does it really matter?

Norm

I myself, atheist-bound-for-hell that I am, can give the authors of the books of Kings a pass on the supposed $\pi = 3$ howler. Note that the diameter and circumference of the circle are given as 10 cubits and 30 cubits respectively. By all standards of applied mathematics, that is only one significant digit in each, and therefore correct. But the Talmudists have also been at work on this, claiming that actually the "molten sea" was flared like the end of a trumpet, so the 10 cubits that "did compass it round about" were actually a little below the brim. (That, of course, is pure fiction, whereas my explanation is scientific.)

And does it matter? Not unless you want to legislate the value that is to be used in commerce, as in House Bill 246 of the 1897 Indiana legislature. This bill was authored by a physician named Edwin J. Goodwin, who had written a book full of mathematical nonsense. (Sample: "a circular area is to the square on a line equal to the quadrant of the circumference as the area of an equilateral rectangle is to the square on one side.") At least, however, it wasn't based on any Biblical value. Dr. Goodwin thought he had good, geometric reasons for believing that $\pi = 16\sqrt2 /7$ . He further believed that $\sqrt2 = 10/7$ , and hence that $\pi= 160/49= 1.6 \times (10/7)^2 = 3.2$ . He offered to let textbooks in Indiana use his results without paying royalties if they would pass this bill, whose language glorified his genius. Indiana was saved from eternal ridicule when a member of the Academy of Sciences happened by (seeking a legislative grant—surprise!) and heard the debate. So the bill failed on its third and final reading, was tabled, and was never taken off the table.

EthnAlln · 07-25-2006, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

But then GJohn has Jesus at this point annex two of John the B's followers, here at the river: Andrew and the unnamed disiple. Andrew immediately calls his brother Simon Peter to come join up. Then Jesus decides to go to Galilee.

Whereas in GMark, Jesus gets those guys while they are fishing at the Sea of Galilee.

Hey, that one is easy. I'm sure lots of people fish in the Sea of Galilee while standing on the shore of the Jordan River.

yalla · 07-26-2006, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roland

Good point.

Do you have any theories, then, on who the naked man might be?

I call him Amos.

"And a young man followed him with nothing but a linen cloth about his body and they seized him, but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked" "Mark" 14.51

Cos the above is a prophecy fulfillment of:

" and he who is stout of heart among the mighty shall flee away naked in that day"
Amos 2.16

cheers
yalla

Roland · 07-26-2006, 06:26 AM

Thanks, yalla.

Another bewildering contradiction: how is it that the same cattle keep getting killed over and over again in the story of the ten plagues?

TomboyMom · 07-26-2006, 02:05 PM

Genesis 6:19
Of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark.
Genesis 7:2
Of every clean beast thou shalt take thee by sevens, the male and his female.

Pastor's Nightmare · 07-26-2006, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EthnAlln

And if I understand correctly (from the novels of Chaim Potok), some Talmudists won't even admit the possibility of a copying error. Whatever is there now was intended to be there, so it's up to the present generation to reconcile it to logic and the rest of the text. This, I should imagine (not being a Talmudic scholar, or even a Jew) must lead to some truly bizarre scenarios.

It's just the very nature of propaganda. If one error is acknowledged, then the entire card house collapses.

Here is an interesting link about Propaganda, which I believe is a good model for Orthodox Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. It is written by Hitler. He did a lot of awful things, but his insight and language are amazing. You don't bring the entire world down to its knees by being a moron. It's worth reading.

http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch06.html

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

07-26-2006, 06:26 AM	#38
Roland Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: California Posts: 748	Thanks, yalla. Another bewildering contradiction: how is it that the same cattle keep getting killed over and over again in the story of the ten plagues?

07-26-2006, 02:05 PM	#39
TomboyMom Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 10,931	Genesis 6:19 Of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark. Genesis 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take thee by sevens, the male and his female.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.