Tod

My name is Tod Billings. I used to do a lot of online debating from 1995 to 2000, usually on Farrell Till's errancy list or at the old "Godless Zone" (not to be confused with the newer version which bears no resemblance to the old), and occassionally at the predecessor to this board. My specialties were (and I suppose still are) biblical criticism and evolution-creationism.

I decided to come out of retirement and get involved again, and this seemed the logical place to go.

Reading below in the thread about the best bible contradictions, I do have to say that I agree with the couple of people that said potential bible critics should be very careful about which Bible contradictions found from internet atheist's sites offering such compilations they choose to champion.

It is really best to actually have a deep familiarity with the biblical text and at least a passing knowledge of current evidence and theories surrounding the authorship and history of the compilation of the Bible. One should also be aware of what the common responses apologists offer for given biblical problems.

The reason is that many of the common contradictions found on such sites aren't really contradictions at all, and among Bible contradictions (or difficulties) there are varying degrees of special pleading necessary to rationalize them away.

If you actually want some Bible believer reading your debate to consider the possiblity that their position is wrong, you need to pick a biblical problem that requires a large amount of mental gymnastics to explain away as opposed to the ones that require only smaller leaps of logic to explain away.

Don't waste your time, for example, with citing conflicting gospel accounts where one author claims there were two people at such-and-such and another author claims there were three. While I agree that the "if there were three there were two" explanation shouldn't be needed if divine inspiration is in play to the point to ensure inerrancy, it is true that technically this isn't a contradiction and it further requires only a small amount of rationalization to reconcile: small enough to be sufficient to convince any believer there is no problem. So unless you just like banging your head against the wall while engaging in pointless debate that will sway nobody but those that already agree with you, I wouldn't go that route.

The conflicting accounts of Judas' demise cited by one poster was a step in the right direction. Having Judas hang from a cliff and then fall after he's dead onto rocks resulting in his intestines bursting out is a much bigger case of special pleading and irrational rationalization than "if there were three there were two." Especially when one considers that the verse in Acts says he fell "headlong," a situation that wouldn't seem likely if a body hanging by its neck plunges to the ground. Not to mention that the Christian who suggested a knowledge of forensics would make the scenario seem likely was just flat out wrong, the opposite is true.

The intestines are one of the first things to decompose after death. Muscle, on the other hand, being much tougher, is one of the last things to decompose and if the stomach muscles had decomposed to the point to allow them to burst open, the intestines are most likely already decomposed to the point where there will be little if anything left to burst out.

But even this, as one atheist admitted, isn't technically a contradiction. It requires a lot of special pleading, but it isn't a direct contradiction.

I'll start a new thread with a couple of examples of direct contradictions and let the resident apologists offer their explanations.

I must end with a comment to one of the Christians on this board who seems to be the most active in apologetics, Magnus. This isn't an insult Magnus, but I have to wonder if you are yet up to the task you have taken. Your biblical knowledge seems weak after I read the statement you made about not being familiar with the story of Satan taking Jesus to the top of a high mountain to see all the kingdoms of the world.

How does a Christian who feels he/she is ready to debate biblical accuracy not know about the story of Jesus' temptation by Satan? This isn't some nit-picky detail from a genaeology from Chronicles, this is a major gospel story of Jesus usually known to most children in Sunday school.

Again, I'm not trying to make fun, just wondering why you feel you are qualified to take on such a task if you lack familiarity with basic bible stories, and what exactly is your method of dealing with biblical problems. Do you simply repeat what you find in apologetic literature and then wing it from there?

Javaman

Hi, Tod. Just wondering if you meant "Magus55" and not "Magnus" in your post.

Tod

I often times get lazy and rely on my memory as opposed to double checking.

Doctor X

!

Vorkosigan

Have you seen TWeb? www.theologyweb.com JP Holding, Till's old sparring partner, hangs out there. There's always a fresh supply of opponents. The downside is that outside of Holding, none of them actually knows anything.

judge

Hi there,
although am not inerrantist this "contradiction" requires very little "special pleading"

In several other places in the NT we are told or can infer that Judas is alive after this "hanging".

Judas becomes choked with grief he hangs his head in shame.

We know for example from the writings of Aristophanes (?) IIRC that people could hang or choke themselves figuratively.

By understanding one word figuratively all associated contradictions vanish

Tod

Hello there... ; )

I saw you reference this other message board in an earlier post. No, I have never visited theologyweb.com. However, didn't you say (again I'm relying on memory and not double-checking) that Holding had deemed debates of this nature too controversial for the general public viewing and had relegated your posts to a less viewed message board?

Doctor X

Well, of course they must protect the children from Vorkosigan. . . .

--J.D.

Tod

Hello ; )

1. I was referring to the explanation that is typically given: that Judas hung himself from a high tree or cliff, the rope broke after death, and he fell onto rocks causing his intestines to burst out. That most definitely IS special pleading.

2. What you offer is also special pleading. What do you think special pleading is? Any time you interpret not based on what a text says but rather in a manner to avoid contradiction you are engaged in special pleading. You offer no reason to believe this alternate interpretation is true other than the implicit fact that accepting this alternate interpretation erases any difficulty with reconciling these passages. The mere fact that you can cite one person in all of history that has referred to somebody hanging themself in a figurative manner, not even providing the quote and context, is not at all a reason to believe that it is used in this manner here, particularly since by an overwhelming majority any time somebody writes about another hanging themself they mean it literally, not figuratively!

3. It is common Christian tradition that Judas died in this manner. My "Pictorial Bible Dictionary,"my fundy Dictionary, refers specifically to this act as an act of suicide. Furthermore, most translations of the Bible that offer descriptive headings over segments of verses refer to this section in Matthew as where Judas dies. Both the Catholic New American Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible title this segment of verses as "The Death of Judas."

4. You offer no precedent for this figurative use of hanging oneself being used in any other part of this gospel, any other gospel, the New Testament as a whole, or the entire Bible. Furthermore, you don't even offer the context in which Aristophanes uses this figurative usage for hanging oneself. I find it hard to believe that any author would refer to somebody hanging themself without showing in the context that it was indeed only meant figuratively considering that anybody simply reading about somebody hanging themself would assume that it was an act of suicide, and not a figurative way of saying they simply hung their head in shame.

I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you, but that is special pleading. At best you can say that your interpretation is one possible, but least likely, interpretation. To reason from Aristophanes used a reference like this once in a figurative way to the author of Matthew clearly meant this reference in a figurative way as well is just bad reasoning .

Doctor X

Pity . . . would suggest the texts were, indeed, written in Greek, but then, again, I would lose another Irony Meter.

--J.D.