dockeen

You might want to apply that standard to your own side as well.

Frank

When I said standard of proof, I was referring to the proof we use in every other instance of life. I can't "conclusively" prove (to the degree you seem to be demanding) that there's no flying teapot in space, but that doesn't mean it's reasonable to believe there is one.

I can have practical certainty that the bible is mythic, just like I can have practical certainty that leprechauns don't exist, and Thor was a mythic figure. Conclusive proof? How would that even be possible (it's an absurd demand). You wouldn't believe the stories contained in the bible if they were told by a contemporary cult. You'd think they were nuts just like the rest of us. Thinking similarly bizarre stories somehow gain an indicia of credibility just because they're contained in an ancient book (when just the opposite should be true), a story I might add that's the dominent myth in our culture, is called a special pleading.

There are contradictions, but it depends on how one finesses the text. Indeed, there's so many different ways to finess it, and so many different ways it has been finessed, talking about biblical contradictions with a Christian is like trying to have a conversation with a brick (a completely fruitless exercise).

If the work of a preeminent scholar like Bart Ehrman hasn't convinced you in this regard, then I surely won't convince you (of what should be obvious to anyone). I don't have a PhD in biblical studies (I figured out it was bullshit long before entering graduate school), so I can only suggest, if you haven't already, grab one of Ehrman's books on the subject and give it a read.

Yeah, we get it dude :rolling:

dockeen

Hmmm,

OK, I decided.

I take that as "yes".

All opposed?

Perspicuo

---

Failte

So, basically, you throw out your interpretation of the texts, assert they are correct, and then refuse to back up your arguments?

That's not a discussion.

If you make a statement here, you are going to have to support it with something other than listing verses, when many here have already shown that your interpretation is not the only valid one, and your conclusions are not supportable.

Simply telling us we "misunderstand" because we disagree with your conclusion that all contradictions are not material (or aren't contradictions at all) isn't helping your case at all. You aren't just repeating what the text say, you are interpreting them with your own "rose colored glasses" because you assume your conclusion - that the bible is unified and non-contradictory in any material way.

I find the contradictions we have been discussion to be very material. They strongly affect the way believers interpret and use the bible to justify their behavior and attitudes. Since we have shown (and you agree) that there are textual contradictions in the bible, it is quite logical to question their impact on the meaning that believers take away from it. If the stories in the bible are false, or if the general themes aren't clear and are open to interpretation in dozens of different ways -- what does that mean to you?

If you claim not to be trying to show the bible is true or correct, then what on earth is showing the textual unity (as you think you have shown) supposed to do?

Any book, from The Iliad to the Davinci Code to the latest Sookie Stackhouse novel could be shown to be consistent and non-contradictory if you work at it. What does that prove? Nothing.

So, let's assume for a moment that we all actually do accept your statement that the bible is non-contradictory and is unified and consistent. What is the point? That the bible is therefore right? That the bible is somehow special? That the bible contains truth? The simple fact that a man-made document (collated or written) is consistent is absolutely meaningless.

You claim that's not what your purview is, but I can't think of any other reason to spend so much effort on explaining how the bible really is consistent and non-contradictory. Why? If it's a matter of faith whether you believe it, what do you hope to accomplish? Why is it important that the bible be non-contradictory and unified unless it is to eventually convince others that they should accept it over other books of scripture?

dockeen

I think that many xtians worry that the impression left when the possibility
is allowed that the bible has contradictions (through whatever mechanism)
in that it leaves an impression that becomes an obstacle to faith. (Keep
in mind people are taught in a lot of circles that the book is perfect, and
without error)

So,

I really don't think they are trying to prove the positive, i.e. it is consistent
therefore it is true - I think they are defending against the negative, i.e.
it has consistency issues, therefore it is not true.

That has been my general observation, not a specific one wrt posters here.

schriverja

The reason I keep repeating it is because you are wrong.

Luke 24:44-48 could not have been Jesus talking about expediency/social acceptance, or there would not have been the fight between Paul and the church leaders of James, Peter, etc. That is the whole point of the Galatians references (post #94), the fact that Paul conceded to the church elders and did the temple ritual in Acts. You are claiming that Luke says something that is doesn't.

simon kole

Credibility is not my purview.

But are they material; i.e., do they change the import of Scripture? My belief is not based in scholarship, argument, apologetcs, laboratory proof, etc. And it likewise will not be unseated by them. Then why does it keep coming up?

Failte

Because regardless of what you say you are doing, what you are implicitly doing is defending the truth/untruth of the bible by asserting that it is non-contradictory and no material inconsistencies exist. Otherwise, why bother?

You aren't writing, "the bible is true because...." but every argument you make about the non-contradictory nature of the verses, every verse you post stating the 'jesus said...." is implicit support of something...and that something sure appears to be "the bible is right/correct/true/worthy of belief/reliable".

Again I ask, to what purpose do you attempt to show the bible as consistent and non-contradictory? What does that show?

simon kole

I have shown in the light of all the Scriptures the meaning of the texts in question. It is up to you to decide if my meaning is justified. In the light of all the Scriptures, general themes are very clear and are not open to interpretation in dozens of different ways.

They are "open" to such only when all of Scripture is not brought to bear on them.

The confusion of my purpose comes from me addressing particular questions to me not related to specific contradictions in the texts.

I chose to answer those questions because they were specifically presented to me, and it seemed unfriendly to refuse to answer them. But they are not a matter of factual proof. The only thing that is a matter of factual proof is what is actually contained in the texts themselves, and its meaning in light of all the Scriptures.

Proof of the Bible's truth is not my objective. Clearing up, in the light of all the Scritpures, misunderstandings regarding contradictions in the texts is my objective.

The point is: a matter of correct information, instead of incorrect information.

If you separate my purview (of addressing textual contradictions for the sake of correct information) from my choice to answer questions outside that purview because they are directed to me, and it seems the friendly thing to do, perhaps it will be more clear to you. It's no more important than being correctly informed on anything else.

If this were a thread on economics, and I was an economist, I would be addressing misunderstandings of the principle of economis. Why? For the sake of being correctly informed.

My personal conviction: if your out-go exceeds your in-come, then your up-keep becomes your down-fall
is irrelevant to a discussion of the principles of economics.

Or my personal conviction: the national wealth should be redistributed the first of every month
is likewise irrelevant to a discussion of the prinipcles of economics.

My personal beliefs are not related to the discussion of actual textual contradictions.
And any actual contradictions that do not alter the import of Scripture are immaterial.

Now that I think about it, that's a good principle to keep in mind, and a good contribution to this subject.