thedistillers

If you start with the idea that the Bible does not contain contradictions, then you'll never find a contradiction.

Example:

1) The table T is blue.

2) The table T is not blue.

I can think of several way to harmonize the apparent contradiction between 1) and 2).

- It does not refer to the same table. There are more than one table "T".
- In 1), the writer wanted to point that that the table is blue for the most part, but in 2) he also wanted to point out that the table is not totally blue.
- The table is blue when you see it from a certain angle, but from another angle the table is not blue.
- The table changes color, magically. Sometimes it is blue. Sometimes it is not.

I've read a little bit of Geisler's book about Bible contradictions, it was an amusing lecture. Like I said, if you don't want to see a contradiction, you'll never see one. :huh: So people are wasting their time to argue with inerrantists.

Deus Ex

Agreed. It is a waste of time.

When I was a Christian, I leaned more towards Biblical Infallibility. I believed that the Bible contained errors, but was infallible on matters of salvation. Of course, many fundamentalists see that as the road to liberal Christianity. Now I believe that the Bible is simply a collection of books, written by superstitious men.

vicjagger

The gospels, for example, are very contradictory, but only if one assumes they are intended to be historical.

Since they are religious fiction, they only seem contradictory. They are just different stories, with similar plotlines, but different details and theological agendas.

GakuseiDon

"Only seem contradictory"? Wouldn't they still be contradictory, regardless of whether they were fact or fiction?

thentian

A lot depends on your understanding of "contradict" IMO.

Dlb's quote from a dictionary is as good as any, so I'll repost that:

I bolded the word "gainsaying" because it is close to a literal translation of "contradict". "Contra" as in against, and "dict" from "speak" or "say".

So when we are talking about contradiction we are talking about what is being said, not what the author(s) meant to say.

1) The table T is blue.
2) The table T is not blue.

This is a contradiction because "table T" is defining the same object (I don't think even dlb would make a claim that there could e.g: be "another Mary Magdalene") and something cannot be A and not-A at the same time. "Is" can only be one point in time (namely now), so even if it changes color, either 1) or 2) can be true now, but not both. Finally, whichever angle you look at it from, only one of the statements can be true from that angle.

1) The table is blue
2) The table is yellow

This is the type of contradiction dlb and his friends typically deny are contradictions, at least when they occur in the bible. You and I will say they are contradictions because we naturally assume they are the same tables (as I did with the spices earlier on) and because to say that it is blue is inconsistent with saying it is yellow. I bolded out "inconsistent" for him earlier, so hopefully he'll agree with that part from now on. (Right, dlb?) I'm afraid hell will freeze over before he'll agree that it was the same spices, though.

dr lazer blast

notice the semi colon, inconsistent is to be taken into the same context as direct opposition between things compared furthermore gainsaying is to be taken into the same context as opposition. Furthermore, when dealing with the bible you display terrible ignorance by just going line for line. By doing that you ignore content, context, and subject, which has been displayed repeatedly throughout this thread. Take your example for instance.

1) The table is blue
2) The table is yellow

it wouldn't even seem like a contradiction if 1 stated the table is blue on monday and 2 stated the table is yellow on thursday, but if you decide to take something line for line and totally ignore the content, context, and subject surrounding these 2 lines you just set yourself up to look ignorant, hence the 'contradictions' in this thread.

thentian

You're reading way too much into a semicolon.

Also notice the "or" between "gainsaying" and "opposition".

It really doesn't matter what someone "meant" to say. If you say A and I say not-A, then we are contradicting each other, whether or not one of us "really" meant to say something else or was "really" thinking about different things.

ETA: So what was in your opinion the content and context that shows there were two sets of spices? I put it to you that the only thing that points to this is that there would otherwise be contradiction between the two writers.

vicjagger

Technically, yes, but IMO, an individual gospel may contradict itself, but contradictions between gospels aren't relevant unless one believes they are accurate representations of historical events.

For example, different versions of the movie "King Kong" are based on the same story, but differ in scenes, dialog, actors, etc. So while they contradict in the literal sense, who cares if they are fictional?

Now, if someone believes King Kong was real, and really did terrorize NYC....

P.S. If anyone would like to read more, see: "Gospel Fictions (or via: amazon.co.uk)", by Randel Helms, ISBN 0-87975-572-5. Mr. Helms is (or was) a professor of literary studies at Arizona State U.

Jedi Mind Trick

I'm not a christian, but I think you need to look up the doctrine of the hypostatic union.

Equinox

If you already know, deep down, that a book wasn’t made with divine guidance, but are tied to it by the refusal to admit error, then convoluted, backwards and silly contortions to resolve contradictions make sense.

On the other hand, if one really knew a book was divine, then finding these obvious problems would lead one to drop the version that there are found in, and look for the one true version.

The actions of biblical inerrantists show the that the first case is what’s really going on – they already know that the Bible is just a mishmash of purely human writings, but are tied to it by a fear of admitting they are wrong, or social pressure, or for some other reason.

The blue table example shows that any contradiction can be denied – just as a flat-earther can deny any evidence for a round earth. However, many of those resulting convolutions turn out to be pretty funny. For instance, compare Mk 14:72 with Jn 18:27

Mk

Jn
So, Mk says Peter will deny Jesus three times before the cock crows twice, and Jn says Peter will deny Jesus before the cock crows at all. Inerrantists I’ve mentioned this too sometimes say “well, Peter must have denied Jesus 6 times – 3 before the first crow of the cock, and 3 more before the second one!”.
Hmm. Sounds like a blue table to me.

Hey, let’s look at some other wiggles from this thread:
“Even though the priest’s bought it, it was Judas’ money!” :rolling:
“Judas must have fell from the rope THEN burst open!” (even though neither passage says that, plus, Papias says Judas died in a traffic accident) :rolling: :rolling:
“Salome used time travel to prepare the spices before buying them!” :rolling: :rolling::rolling:
"Salome must have prepared spices before the Sabbath, then thought 'wow, it's been hot - Jesus rotting body must really stink by now, I'll go buy another set of spices...' " :rolling::rolling::rolling:


Originally Posted by dr lazer blast
Sigh. So obviously false. Even a freshman seminary student knows that the KJV is based on 11th century documents (the TR), while the NIV and modern translations are based on the older manuscripts.

This is embarrassingly naïve statement shows another realization that anyone will see if they look – that inerrantists don’t really care about what the original Bible said, but only care about defending their church/group/ideology/bound paper idol. If they really cared what the originals of the books in the Bible said, they’d actually spend some time looking into what our oldest manuscripts say, what they histories of the various Bible translations are, and all that.

Just as we saw in the reaction to the contradictions, it again confirms that inerrantists already know that the Bible has nothing to do with God’s word, but that they are too insecure to admit they are living a lie. It’s sad to see.

I’m sure some inerrantists are watching this thread. I hope they have the courage to really think about what they believe deep down, and then test each idea based on reading the views from both those who agree and those who disagree. Feel free to quietly read, listen, and think. Then, to have to courage to put what is learned from that into action. Most people will accept those who admit mistakes and change. Any that don’t – well, you are better off without them anyway. ><

All the best-

Equinox