regis

If we were discussing other ancient texts, we would all be able to agree that so-and-so long-dead authors were wrong when they asserted that the world began and ended in, say, Mesopotamia. Because we are talking about a 'holy' book, we go to the ends of the earth defining what John really meant by this when he really should have said that. If you examine 'holy water' by any means available to you, you will find that it is only water and nothing more. As has been stated many times and here once more, any and all 'holy' books were written (and re-written) by men. Any and all gods are the invention and fantasy of the same.

:devil1:

LeeBuhrul

What does Thomas Paine's beliefs have to do with beheadings anywhere? Do you realize beheadings and the prisoner abuse in Iraq are being perpetrated by both sides in the name of the same god?

Do you realize... oh forget it...

PS:Thomas Paine's education and knowledge was such that he could rightly claim he'd forgoten more than most other people will ever know in a lifetime... and he lived A LONG TIME AGO....he had to.. he was one of US' founding fathers....

llamaluvr

That sounds incredibly nebulous. How can we ever know what is the more likely explaination? Should there be a "contradiction percent" assigned to each of these? Even then, who sets it, and who decides what sort of evidence overrides this ranking?

Provided we can find a plausible scenario which reconciles the verses in question, we cannot possibly assign the probability that the verses contradict to be any less or greater than the probability that they did not. Biblical exegesis is not a science of probabilities.

That's what I mean by a set of verses being "not guilty"- we can no longer say with any surety that they contradict. In particular, we cannot say that they contradict any more than they don't.

By and large, it is not as if one can just suggest *any* scenario, even though a Biblically supported scenario does not have any additional logical debunking power over one simply pulled out of nowhere. I did support my rebuttal with scripture, providing one verse establishing that Jesus willingly and knowingly limited his power, and also showing that, in John 14, he was talking about leaving earth, where his power was limited, for heaven, which houses his father, who was not limited in power.

-----

Furthermore, examining each contradiction in and of itself has nothing to do with whether or not the Bible is the infallible word of God, or whether or not God even wrote the Bible. One should view it from this level as a contiguous literary work, and nothing more. You expecting better from the Bible should have no more bearing on such analysis than my opinion that the book is better than I could have ever anticipated. These are subjective feelings, not objective facts.

The problem with the contradictions listed is that no pair of them explicitly state both of these possibilities. Unless somebody can find a verse saying that the Father and the Son are identical in all respects in both their internal makeup, and the way in which they present or represent themselves to or on earth (a real mouthful!), there's no contradiction.

This is the problem with using verses that implicitly infer details to establish explicit facts. Alone, it can't be done. If somebody infers from "the Father and I are one" all of the above, then I can show that there is not necessarily a contradiction with any valid example, no matter how rediculous or farfetched (think space aliens). All I have to do is infer something else. One needs to start from statements that explicitly state truths and use those to interpret the implicit statements. Once he does that, he'll either find real contradictions or he won't find any.

The only real difference with that is semantics. If Meritt were to change the title of his work to "Bible Inconsistences", he would still be presenting as inconsistant what might only be paradoxical.

-DM-

In many cases, I don't think it is all that difficult to come up with what is most likely when one takes into consideration certain known facts about the Bible, for example:

* The fact that the Bible is composed of a selection (about which there was considerable squabbling) of different books from different authors (including many so-called books which are, themselves, the work of multiple authors and/or editors and/or redactors).

* The fact that there are no originals of any book of the Bible.

* The fact that there are tens of thousands of differences between the manuscripts and scraps of manuscripts that we do have of the various books of the Bible.

* The fact that different "Christian" denominations disagree in their doctrine, doctrine allegedly based on the Bible (which tends to indicate that there are, in fact, inconsistencies in the Bible).

* The fact that the Bible contains a number of historical inaccuracies, anachronisms, etc.

All of these taken together (and many other facts as well) make it probable that very many of the so-called inconsistencies and/or contradictions found in the Bible really are inconsistencies and/or contradictions which no amount of ad hoc "explaining" can adequately explain.

In fact, were the Bible the work of a perfect and omnipotent "God" as is often claimed, it should not be necessary for armies of apologists to attempt to "explain" these problems.

I disagree. A "perfect and omnipotent God" cannot correctly be considered both perfect and omnipotent if He does imperfect work, and the Bible is quite obviously, it seems to me, an imperfect work.

I would have no problem at all with the Bible being considered nothing more than a literary work. The problem, however, is that the Bible has been promoted as much more than a literary work. And, in any case, I don't believe that it can correctly be considered a "contiguous" work given that:

* The various books which make up the Bible were written over a period of many centuries.

* There was subsequent editing and redacting of the writings.

* The authors would not likely have known that their work was going to someday be included in a "Bible."

* The official canon was not settled until long after the existence of the books which are now part of the Bible.

* There is some disagreement even today as to which books belong in the official canon (Jewish vs. Christian scriptures, Catholic vs. Protestant scriptures, Eastern vs. Western scriptures, etc.).

I disagree. It seems obvious to me that a book inspired by a perfect and omnipotent "God" could not possibly contain the problems that the Bible obviously contains, problems which are seen by the vast majority of Bible scholars, problems that are inconsistent with either the perfection or the omnipotence of the "God" who allegedly inspired the Bible.

You are entitled to your opinion. From another perspective, however, you would seem to be detouring the obvious.

I see at least a subtle difference between "paradoxical," "inconsistent" and "contradictory." If you do not, so be it.

---

As I said previously, " 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." I have offered my comments. You need not agree with my position. We'll see if Mr. Meritt responds. Wether he does or not, feel free to have the last word.

-Don-

[Edited to add a missing "not. -DM-]

llamaluvr

How do any of these make it more probable? Something like a lack of original copies has no bearing on whether the document contradicts itself. And quarrelling between denominations only proves that different people interpret the Bible differently (and possibly that certain ones are biased towards promoting their own view).

People have differed on interpretations of much simpler texts than the Bible. I don't see how this happening with the Bible adds any weight to the notion that it contradicts itself. And it is totally unverifiable whether or not a literary work with difficult statements is "less perfect" than one without.

"For this purpose" we shouldn't consider it anything more than a literary work. In evangelism, one generally states their beliefs about God, the Bible, et al. It would be misleading to not mention that Christians believe the Bible is the word of God. However, I've never seen a Biblical scholar, when engaging in proper exegesis with a particular verse or verses, use anything other then the given text.

If Meritt or anybody else is going to go beyond the text, then that's their perogative. However, at that point, it's more evangelism than exegesis, because they are unabashedly using their beliefs to determine whether or not something is a contradiction.

Let me clarify this: my belief that the word of God is infallible only *motivates* me to consider the errors with supposed contradictions; I don't actually use that belief to debunk it.

Also, considering it a "contiguous work" works in your favor. If we don't, then we can consider each book alone, and we only need make sure that each book does not contradict itself. By considering the Bible as a whole, we're responsible for seeing that the whole thing resolves itself internally. That's what I meant by that.

If you can't always get "the Father and Jesus are the exact identical entity" out of "The Father and I are one", then you can't say that that verse means that. Fire, Earth, Water, Wind, and Heart combined into "one" to form Captain Planet, but it doesn't mean that each of those powers was identical. Wind caused tornados. Heart told you what animals were thinking. (sorry for the lame Saturday morning cartoon analogy, but it's the best I can think of on zero sleep).

Me, too! That's why I said that! :-)

I didn't really want the last word, because I don't want to sound like a jerk, but, more than anything, I wanted to say why this is so important.

Lots of young, impressionable people really look to II for information. I've seen it in the places where I've been, and I'm sure it's happening all over the world- 16-or-so-year-olds will go to Mr. Meritt's or your list of Bible contradictions/ inconsistencies so they can post them on message boards to combat ObnoxiousChristian72's or whoever is on there's claims. The collective presence of II at least looks smarter and sounds smarter than these posters (and I'm sure it is), so they trust your resources like they are gospel (er, you know what I mean) truth. If these resources are not grounded in sound logic, then I feel that their presence in their current form does a serious disservice to those who trust these resources (not that you actually owe them anything, technically).

I understand you're not Mr. Meritt's secretary, but these comments are applicable to lists of contradictions/ inconsistencies in general. I hope he does respond; it would be interesting to see what other II authors have to say.

Thank you for your time and thoughtful responses,

Keith

Un-registered

Keith,

I hate to accuse you of something that may not be true 'cuz I'm no mind reader, of course, but it looks like you missed the point completely. I think Don was saying that all those points put together make it more likely that contradictions do exist. If we had the one true original of each book it would be less likely that there would be contradictions etc. than it is if we only have copies which have been edited. Copyists make errors. Editors change things. And so on. And quarreling between denominations isn't just because they have different interpretations of the same verse. They sometimes pick and choose between contradictory verses what to make an important part of their creed.


Contiguous means very close or connected in time to me. The Bible isn't contiguous unless you consider 750 years or so contiguous. In fact, it's kind of an un-contiguous hodgepodge when you get right down to it.

regis

Of course the Bible is the work of men! Even when I was a believer, I knew that hundreds of years of oral tradition had occured before many of the various writings (that is, written by men, not burned into clay tablets by god) were even wriitten down (by men) for the first time. Did subsequent copyists make mistakes or deliberately change passages to suit their purposes? No! That's not possible - - - humans are inerrant and don't have agendas, right? Why does anyone believe that the bible is 'the word of god'? Because it says so in the bible? Hey, that's kinda convenient, dontcha think? What if I had a revelation, was visited by the spirit, and stated that the bible is bunk cuz god told me so? What if I state that I'm a True Believer and so you have to follow me - - - do my statements make it so? If your reason or whatever tells you that some parts of the bible must have been inspired by god, well then go for it. If you believe that every dot, jot, and comma in the bible is the word of god, then I've got two questions for you: Why would god refer to himself in the third person (he did this & he said that)??? Who does he think he is, Wayne Gretzky??

:devil1:

llamaluvr

I understand your concern. Let me clarify my position on this.

Other than the fact that I disagree with him, I have no problem with his position that certain external factors have caused the Bible to be inaccurate. He cited evidence, and I could cite just as much evidence that the written text has not been irreconcilably corrupted. But I'm not, because that is not what I'm concerned with here. It's his opinion, and he has every right to have it.

My concern is that he believes that this evidence, and his and others' opinions regarding it, are valid for use as tools in performing Biblical exegesis, particularly in determining logical validity. Meanwhile, I can't fathom any other way to examine the internal logical validity of a text other than only considering the text.

Here's an example. I totally apologise for using a political example. Please understand that I'm only using it because it was recently relevant, and not to make a political statement-

During the 2004 United States presidential race, Senator John Kerry was accused of being a "flip-flopper". In other words, some people contended that he contradicted himself (this is exactly what Jim Meritt is contending regarding the Bible). If you were to determine whether or not this was true, you would look at what John Kerry said or did. And that's it. You wouldn't consider anything said by Michael Moore, MoveOnPAC, or even Teresa Heinz-Kerry, and you definitely wouldn't consider anything said by George W. Bush, Ann Coulter, or Rush Limbaugh. If John Kerry contradicted himself, we'll know by what he said or did. If he didn't contradict himself, we'll know by what he said or did.

Sorry. I used the wrong word. All I'm saying is that, for the purposes of Biblical exegesis, you consider the Bible an entire work. As an example, a verse in Matthew must not contradict one in Lamentations, or else the Bible is not logically valid.

BSM

You write:
Keith,

I am not he. Nonetheless, several of your comments caught my eye and I can’t help but respond (albeit, out of order). Also, I do not plan to discuss biblical contradictions (discrepancies) other than to say that reading the various lists of contradictions led me to research how the Bible came to be (in other words, the contradictions are a symptom of a much bigger problem).

You write:
According to Kaiser in Toward an Exegetical Theology, exegesis is nothing without hermeneutics: In other words, Hermeneutics is not exegesis, but you can’t have one without the other. Or, as Hirsch puts it, We can quibble about semantics all day but it seems to me that it is a matter of probability for those who actually apply hermeneutics (the rules) and exegesis (the process). In other words, the end goal of exegesis is to assign a truth-value. To do this, one must follow the rules, examine the evidence, and assign a probability.

You write: Since my gradual deconversion I have read dozens of books on biblical criticism and one thing that many of these books have in common is a variation of your sentiment:

In effect, many Christians believe the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says it is the word of God. This type of reasoning is both circular and faulty because the conclusion is in the argument’s premise. This also leads me ask you and other Christians this: does the belief that the word of God is infallible *motivate* you and others to rationalize the errors with supposed [your word] contradictions?

You write: Exactly! So I ask again: does the belief that the word of God is infallible *motivate* you and others to rationalize the errors with supposed [your word] contradictions?

You write:
Equivocation? What do you mean by perfect? Seems to me that there is a BIG difference between the Iliad and a book that is touted to deliver the message of an omnipotent and omniscient being. Perhaps you can’t see the difference but I certainly can.

Another thing: the quarreling between denominations over scriptural interpretation may be evidence of many other things besides a difference of opinion. In fact, after years of research I have personally concluded that it is highly probable that the quibbling is evidence that the Bible is a man-made work period.

For example, in describing the writing of the Gospels the Ecumenical Translation of the Bible suggests that the various interpretations of an oral tradition influenced the recorded teachings of the disciples and other preachers: “Thus the evangelists, each according to his own outlook [emphasis mine], have collected and recorded in writing the material given to them by the oral tradition".

This position has been accepted by numerous “experts� in the exegesis of the New Testament, both Catholic and Protestant. However, it differs greatly from what the Second Vatican Council said:

There is hardly any compatibility between the Council's statement and what the authors quoted above claim. In particular the following:

The Gospels "are not to be taken literally" they are "writings suited to an occasion." Their authors "are writing down the traditions of their own community concerning Jesus (Ecumenical Translation of the Bible )."

Again, I submit that these and other problems make it highly probable the God did not reveal his will via the Bible. I also submit that these and many other problems relating to the Bible are evidence that the Bible is man-made. Finally, to assign a truth-value to any biblical verse, chapter, or the book itself, it would be most helpful, in my opinion, to have the original documents. For example, concerning the Gospels, the Ecumenical Translation of the Bible gives us the following statistics:

Verses common to all three Gospels: 330
Verses common to Mark and Matthew: 178
Verses common to Mark and Luke: 100
Verses common to Matthew and Luke: 230

The verses unique to each of the first three Gospels are as follows: Matthew 330, Mark 53, and Luke 500.

In addition, Mark is thought by the experts to be the oldest Gospel. Moreover, most of the experts agree that the last twelve verses of Mark were added at a much later date. So, if the other Gospels were based on Mark, it opens up the possibility that the only account of the resurrection that we have is a forgery (unless someone finds Q).

Finally, we have MANY other problems with the Bible, some of which have already been mentioned:

1) The early Church actively destroyed many works that were critical of the Bible and Christianity, 2) Forged documents are known to exist. In fact, it was often an accepted practice in Biblical times to forge the style of a popular writer. This type of writing is known as [URL=http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/apocrypha.html[/URL], 3) Almost all of the books of the Bible are anonymous, 4) We do not have one single original period, and 5) Many manuscripts differ from other copies of the same book.

Finally, you write:
If I may quote Jesus:

I find it highly unethical, distasteful, and dishonest that many impressionable young-people are taught by their authorities (i.e., pastors, teachers, parents, etc.) that the Bible is the word of God period. In fact, I was taught from kindergarten on that the Bible was the truthful word of God period, and I know many more Christians today who are still taught this. Honestly, how many sermons, Sunday school lessons, youth Bible studies, or confirmation classes ever even remotely touch on any of the problems that I, or other authors of II have wrote about? In fact, during 20 years that I was a Christian I never heard any of these things mentioned once! Who is doing whom a disservice here? In fact, were it not for secular authors I likely would have never learned of any of this. I will go out on a limb and say that the vast majority of II authors would encourage anyone--irregardless of age--to research these topics and reach their own conclusions. In fact, were that not the general sentiment of II there would not be a need for a feedback forum. Nor, for that matter, would the II invite theistic authors to write counter articles.

~BSM

BSM

My apologies for the errant link. It was in reference to pseudepigrapha.

Regards,

~BSM