John Davis

If Thomas Paine doesn't believe in God or Christianity then how does he think he can claim some expertise in Biblical interpretation. The article on free masonary was good except for the ingorance he portrays by trying to connect chrisitianity and masonary from the same source. Trying to take old testament exerpts from the Bible out of context only added to the lack of intelligence he manifested on the issue.

Lets see what Paine really believes should he ever become a hostage in Iraq and being prepared for a beheading. God will become a real possibility for him then

-DM-

Thank you for your feedback regarding the writings of Thomas Paine in the Secular Web Historical Library.

When you say, "Lets see what Paine really believes should he ever become a hostage in Iraq and being prepared for a beheading. God will become a real possibility for him then," you seem to be implying that old cliché, "there are no atheists in foxholes." There are at least a few problems with your statement:

* Paine wasn't an atheist. He was a deist. He believed in God, but essentially believed that the God of Christianity is preposterous.

* There is no possibility that Paine will ever be a hostage in Iraq who needs to be prepared for a beheading inasmuch as he died in 1809, almost 200 years ago.

* There are plenty of atheists in foxholes. In fact, some God-believers become atheists while in the throes of war as a result of their experiences. See, for example:
I Was an Atheist in a Foxhole
Notes from the Freethinker's Foxhole

* Accusations about taking biblical verses out of context are often groundless when one considers that whole sermons are sometimes built on a single verse whose teaching is at odds with some other biblical verse, and given the fact that it is in the context of the whole that the Bible is seen as inconsistent. (Paine, for example, made much of the difference between the God of the Old Testament and that of the New Testament in his The Age of Reason.)

* Apparently you didn't notice the disclaimer regarding documents in the Secular Web Historical Library, which reads as follows:

* And finally, if you disagree with Paine when he says "The christian religion and Masonry have one and the same common origin: both are derived from the worship of the Sun," then you need to provide some evidence and/or argument to support your position and to refute Paine's position. It isn't sufficient just to assert that such is the case.

-Don-

Nevyn O'Kane

One need not share belief in the Abrahamic god in order to interpret the bible any more than one need believe in talking animals to interpret Animal Farm. There is no test of faith required for expertise. A critical eye should be cast towards the sacred more often.

LeeBuhrul

one needs NOT to believe in the christian god

guest

the context of the verse in the sermon affects the context of the sermon, the sermon in the chapter, and the chapter in the book, and finally the book in the bible.
You can't just make a sweeping judgement of what the context of the bible is without examining the context of the verses.
When you do this, there are far fewer inconsistencies than many claim.

disclaimer: I do not deny that there might still be inconsistencies, only that they are far fewer in number.

-Rob

-DM-

Hello Rob,

This is a sweeping generalization in and of itself, a generalization that certainly did not always hold true in the sermons that I heard back when I was a Christian.

Exactly.

I can't speak for "many," but it is only when the context of the Bible as a whole is considered that many inconsistencies become apparent.

Fewer in number as compared to what?

Regards,
-Don-

guest

sorry...should've posted this too:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...adictions.html

fewer than that.

Before you even ask, nope, I'm not going to dissect them all. Just saying that I've looked into a lot of them on my own. Context noted, many of them are easily refuteable. Many, I'm at a loss figuring out how it can't be contradictory.


Perhaps you could explain to me how the context of the bible as a whole can give light to more inconsistencies?
I think arguing the context of one story against the context of another can do this, yes. But first and foremost, the context of each story must be figured out first.
To take 2 verses that on their own are clearly contradictory and say that that's taking them in the context of the bible as a whole seems...unintelligent.(and I might note, that I don't think the people here are unintelligent in any way).

-Rob

-DM-

Rob,

Thank you for the clarification.

Your assertion that there are fewer contradictions than the (alleged) Biblical Contradictions listed by Jim Meritt is the exact opposite of what I would assert. In other words, I would say that there are many more biblical "contradictions" than the few that Jim Meritt lists. Of course, it depends to some extent on what one sees as a contradiction. For that reason, I prefer to think of them as Biblical Inconsistencies and then to provide a disclaimer to the effect that such inconsistencies can be "explained" if, for example, one considers ad hoc how-it-might-have-been "explanations" as actual explanations.

In any case, it isn't convincing for either of us to simply state his beliefs regarding this matter. If you are going to assert that many of Jim Meritt's "contradictions" are "easily refutable," then you need to provide us with example refutations so that we can discuss the merits of your alleged refutations. Similarly, if I am going to assert that there are many more inconsistencies than those that Meritt lists, then I need to provide some evidence (as I believe that I have done with my list of Biblical Inconsistencies).

Now, how is it that it is only when the context of the Bible as a whole is considered that many inconsistencies become apparent? Take almost any single biblical verse or passage, context and all, and by itself it will not likely be obvious that there is yet another verse or passage which, with its context, is inconsistent with the first. It is only when the two are compared that the inconsistencies become apparent. Here are a couple of examples:

---

GE 11:26 Terah was 70 years old when his son Abram was born.
GE 11:32 Terah was 205 years old when he died (making Abram 135 at the time).
GE 12:4, AC 7:4 Abram was 75 when he left Haran. This was after Terah died. Thus, Terah could have been no more than 145 when he died; or Abram was only 75 years old after he had lived 135 years.

2KI 8:25-26 Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began his reign.
2CH 22:2 He was 42 when he began his reign.
[Note: Some translations use "twenty-two" here in an attempt to rectify this discrepancy. The Hebrew is clear, however, that 2CH 22:2 is 42. The Hebrew words involved are Strong's H705 and H8147, "forty" and "two," respectively.]

2KI 9:27 Jehu shot Ahaziah near Ibleam. Ahaziah fled to Meggido and died there.
2CH 22:9 Ahaziah was found hiding in Samaria, brought to Jehu, and put to death.

---

Of course, none of this would really matter so much were it not for the fact that extraordinary claims are often made for the Bible (e.g., that it is the infallible, inerrant, plenary, inspired "Word of God"--or something similar). My take on it is that a perfect and omnipotent "God" could have, should have, and would have done a MUCH better job it were "He" to have anything to do with the inspiration of "His Word." You need not agree, of course.

Regards,
-Don-

llamaluvr

I'm curious about this, since, on other message boards, I have been presented with II resources listing supposed contradictions, and have often stepped through these with the posters. So, naturally, since I've gone through the trouble of refuting maybe 100 different II-supplied contradictions, I've thought about submitting them. But your commend about "how-it-might-have-been" explainations makes me curious as to what you actually consider to be one of these, and how many of my explainations would have been accepted.

Anyway, by this, are you talking about explainations that provide at least one scenario where a group of supposedly conflicting passages can harmonize? It would seem to me, even if the language still seems contradictory, that one successful explaination that could remove that designation, because there is reasonable doubt that they actually contradict. Furthermore, I would be hesitant to even call them "inconsistent", because now there is reasonable doubt that they are even that, as well. Any plausible scenario that causes the passages to not conflict would render them "not guilty" of contradicting each other.

I guess an example would help. In this contradiction, Meritt asks "Is Jesus equal to or lesser than [the Father]?" And he references these two verses:

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

My scenario is this: in John 10:30, Jesus is talking about how both him and the Father are God, or, rather, united as one body in the godhead. In John 14:28, Jesus is refering to the fact that, at this time, the Father is ruling the universe, while Jesus has willingly taken on a more limited form. Other parts of the Bible corraborate that Jesus willingly limited his power (ex: Philippians 2:6-8). The topic Jesus is addressing agrees, too, as he is talking about how his disciples should be glad that he is "going to the Father", who is obviously in a better position than Jesus is in right now.

That explaination does not exonerate Jesus or John from being confused or forgetful, but it does provide a "way out" of the contradition, meaning that the verses are not guilty of such an offense. At that point, I would find it just plain misleading to leave them up there in their current form. Their presence on the list indicates that they cannot corraborate, even though they can.

Also, I agree with Rob's comment about context, but for a different reason (actually, I share the opinion that his reason is valid, too, but I'd like to emphasize something else). Obviously, in the example noted above, the two verses Meritt highlights are not the only two that talk about Jesus's relationship to the Father. Wouldn't it be more accurate to include a fuller representation of those? It's difficult to comment whether or not the Bible maintains a consistent position on the ontological status of Jesus without looking at all the points where it states its position. I already pointed out the Philippians passage, which offers invaluable information about how Jesus could be lesser than the Father.

Finally, I don't think finding the "context" should be taken as just grabbing text around it. It's answering questions like, "Who was Jesus saying this to?", "What was the general topic he was addressing?", "Where was he saying it?", and so forth. Granted, adding all this information takes time, but I think it would be much better to have a few "contradictions" that are fully documented than a billion that aren't. No offense to Mr. Meritt, but, from my point of view, his list looks like, well, FUD.

Thank you.

Keith

-DM-

Hello Keith,

Thank you for your additional feedback.

I'm not really in the business of defending--or critiquing--Mr. Meritt's "List of Biblical Contradictions," but I will offer some additional comments...

Yes, this is generally what I had in mind when I mentioned ad hoc how-it-might-have-been "explanations."

This is incorrect. It is not sufficient to come up with a plausible scenario which would cause the passages to not conflict in order to render them "not guilty" of contradicting each other. One needs also to provide convincing evidence and/or argument that a specific "plausible scenario" should be taken as the scenario more likely than that the passages do, in fact, contradict--all the while keeping in mind that what is likely in question is whether or not the Bible is "The inerrant, infallible, plenary, Word of God," or in any way "The Word" of a perfect and omnipotent "God." In this regard, it seems quite obvious to me that a perfect and omnipotent "God" certainly could have and would have done a better job of it than the Bible.

That is one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that either Jesus and the Father are, in fact, one, and therefore equal, or else they are not. This question is one that cannot be satisfactorily settled on the basis of the Bible, alone, given that there are a number of verses which support both points of view. Taken in the context of the whole, the question remains: biblically speaking, are Jesus and the Father equal, one in the same--or are they not? Keeping in mind that the Bible is alleged to be "The Word" of a perfect and omnipotent "God," it seems obvious to me that such a "God" could have and would have done a better job of it.

There is a rational explanation, however, to this (and other) alleged contradiction(s) in John: like many other "books" of the Bible, the book of John is not the work of a single author but rather a composite work of several authors. For example, in his book, "The Literary Origin of the Gospel of John," (long out of print but sometimes available through a book search, or used through Amazon) Howard Teeple identifies four different authors in John.

I wholeheartedly agree that it would be more accurate to include a fuller representation of what the Bible has to say about the ontological status of Jesus. I also believe that, if one does look at "all the points where it states its position," then it becomes obvious that the position is muddled, that the position is not what one would expect to find proffered by a perfect and omnipotent "God." In addition, there is the problem of how much context should be included; it seems to me that almost nothing short of the entire Bible would satisfy the charge leveled by many believers that the verses in question were taken "out of context."

You might well be right. I tend to agree that many so-called contradictions mentioned by nonbelievers are not necessarily contradictions. That is one of the reasons that I prefer the term "inconsistencies." Even then, some of the inconsistencies that I believed I had found have subsequently been demonstrated to my satisfaction to be not-inconsistent, and I therefore removed them from my listing. Still, there remain a sufficient number of convincing-to-me inconsistencies to make it seem obvious that the Bible cannot possibly be "The Word" of a perfect and omnipotent "God." To me, it seems obvious that it is the work of fallible men who claimed to be speaking for a perfect and omnipotent "God"--but didn't do a convincing job of it.

Regards,
-Don-

P.S. Jim Meritt has been notified of the additional feedback. Perhaps he will offer his comments.