gstafleu

This is a bit of a side-track, but it almost seems as if monotheism is an unstable system. It seems difficult to establish and maintain, witness all the carrying on in the OT about not believing in false gods: if there was no inclination to do so, the warnings would have been unnecessary.

Then it is in place for a while, but things start to fall apart with the Jesus story. In its final form the story has Jesus as being an entity separate from God, something which had to be glued together with the trinity idea, which took care of the spirit of god as well.

A while after that the official Church starts its Maria cult (or perhaps it was contemporaneous, I don't know), not seeing her as a goddess is a bit of a stretch (though of course possible for a true believer). As if that was not enough a whole raft of saints was introduced next. Saints for sailors, for soldiers, for tailors, for just about everything. We're back pretty close to pantheism at that point!

Next along comes Luther to put an end to all that. His stern Reformation, bereft of any fantasy, works for a while. But then, in the good old USA, come along the angels! You should go to an angel store one day: there are angels for everything, just like there were saints for everything.

Monotheism seems to be a tough row to hoe.

Gerard Stafleu

John Kesler

Although there are passages which seem to espouse monotheism, much of the Hebrew Bible takes for granted the existence of gods other than Yahweh. In addition to Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32:8-9, here are a few others, quoted from the NRSV:

The last 2 verses express the belief known as monolatry--the belief that multiple gods exist, but that only Yahweh, as Israel's God, should be worshiped. It is not until later in Israelite thought that monotheism emerges, expressed in passages such as Isaiah 44:6, Deuteronomy 32:39, and Isaiah 45:5.

diana

Another contradiction I quite enjoy discussing and whose varied explanations cannot be reconciled with the facts and/or one another (so far as I've seen yet) are the genealogies of Jesus. There have been various threads on them through the years, at which points I've picked up quite a list of problems with them. At the end of June in 2005, when a friend asked me about my favorite biblical contradiction, I posted them to my blog, complete with a comparison chart. I think it's a fairly good summation, and there are some extra points in the comments that follow (the post is closed to comments now).

d

gstafleu

Of course all of these "contradictions" can be easily explained if we see them as the result of various traditions (oral or otherwise) that were combined into one set of books. It reminds me a bit of a website about Harry Potter I once found, where all the internal "contradictions" in the books were listed (mostly having to do with dates and timing, I think).

The contradictions are only contradictions in other words, if you insist they reflect reality. If you see them as versions of myths and legends, the problem disappears. See Holy Writ as Oral Lit by John Alan Dundes for an exposition of these effects in oral transmission.

Gerard Stafleu

diana

I agree. I said as much in the writeup I linked to.

d

mdd344

Diana,
Have you considered the way names were used in the OT times?

Consider names for God, and descriptions as given by the ISBE:

The meaning of the verse you gave can be taken many ways. It could be, as some have suggested, that the import of the name had not yet been realized. It could refer to a name that came into use when Moses recorded his writings at a latter time. It could refer to some special attribute of God. It could have reference to God's very personal relationship with Moses. I do not know which. But I don't immediately see any contradiction just because I do not know precisely what it means.

I personally don't believe one must understand the Hebrew/Greek in order to understand the Bible. But one must keep in mind the culture about which one is reading, and the way they used words--in this case, names.

The Evil One

Alternatively, it might mean what it says, namely that "I [am] the LORD: And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by [the name of] God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them."

These are not difficult words. God says that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob did not know his name YHWH.

The only difficulty arises if you are precommitted to the literal truth of other parts of the pentateuch which portray A, I and J as knowing the name YHWH.



Au contraire, it is because there is a contradiction that you are driven to the conclusion that you don't know precisely what it means.

mdd344

The Evil One,
But then the opposite is true, right? That is, you believe (or people believe) that there is a contradiction because they are not committed to the literal truths of the Pentateuch.

It is a game of assumptions, isn't it? The one who assumes the Bible is not true, and is a lie, believes this is a case closed contradiction that proves it. The one who assumes the Bible is true and is not a lie believes this is not a contradiction because such is against all of what the Bible stands for. So two sets of people look at the same verse and come up with two radically different conclusions. I am not sure many on either side could actually come up with a final conclusion on this verse.

What does that prove? I think nothing at all. One case is as good as another and one's preconceived notions govern their conclusions.

The Evil One

A text which is not entirely true may contain contradictions, but then again, it might not. To find out, you read it and see. When you read the Bible without presuming in advance that it either has or lacks contradictions, you quickly find quite a few.

Maybe on your part. However, there is a distinction between an assumption and a conclusion. There is a difference between:

(a) saying "Passage X and Passage Y contradict one another because when we compare what they say we see that they can't both be true". This is a conclusion.

(b) saying "Passage X and Passage Y do not contradict one another because I have made a presupposition that the text they are in is literally true". This is an assumption.


not an assumption, a conclusion. You're getting it the wrong way round. I don't assume that the Bible is not entirely true, and conclude that it must contain contradictions. Rather, I observe that the Bible contains contradictions, and conclude that it is not entirely true.



However, one of us is pre-committed to there being no contradictions. Namely you. I, on the other hand, am open to the possibility that there aren't any (after all, there are plenty of texts without contradictions) and only conclude that there are some after I've actually seen them.

diana

mdd,

You're pretty close, actually. We're willing to acknowledge the contradictions because (yes) we are not committed to the literal truths of the Pentateuch.

There's a saying I picked up years ago: The desire to believe is reason to doubt. This doesn't mean your conclusions are necessarily wrong because you want to believe something; it's a caution against confirmation bias.

You continue to assert this each time we use basic reasoning to demonstrate the shortcomings of the Bible. Yet you yourself fall back on "logical arguments" for your belief. Well...which is it?

In logic, you may not presuppose your conclusion.

If you're going to claim logical support, you may not fall back on your conclusion for support. And in the end, "the bible is divine and cannot contradict itself" is your conclusion. You can't start with your conclusion and reason backwards. You must begin with THE EVIDENCE ITSELF and nothing else and reason forward. The evidence (contradictions) does not support the conclusion that the Bible is without contradictions. Thus, the conclusion--by the rules of logic--must be rejected. That's how it works.

If you aren't going to claim logical support, then...I'm not sure how you plan to make any arguments. Seems to me as though we're all stuck with logic as the most dependable tool with which to distinguish between reality and fantasy.

If you find the evidence does not support the conclusion then "adjust" the evidence as necessary to maintain that conclusion, you may not persist in claiming to be a reasonable/rational/logical person. At that point, you have become a zealot, and have demonstrated your "proofs" to be utterly undependable, as they are so obviously contrived to support what you've decided to believe regardless of what the evidence shows.

d