Family Man

Some thirty years ago, I got unexpectedly thrust into a world of biblical literalists. You know, the kind that insists that the Bible is the perfect word of God and infallible. I found this very strange as I had read large portions of the Bible and, for a number of reasons, had found it a very human document. I'd explain my position, they'd scurry off to their pastor, and come back with struck me as a completely irrelevant response.

One of the biggest misconceptions I commonly see is that if you "resolve" a contradiction, it ceases to be an indication of being the handiwork of fallible humans. This is a very strange position to take. Suppose that I am asked by two different people what I did the day before. I tell one I went on a picnic with Cindy, and another that I went dancing with Susan. Later, I am confronted with my contradiction, and I explain that I had my picnic during the day and went dancing in the evening. Have I "resolved" my contradiction? Certainly. But why was there a contradiction in the first place? Because I was less than clear and incomplete in my intial answers. My statements were contradictory, because I am fallible.

It is not dissimilar with the Bible. "Resolving" contradictions does not remove the very human nature of the document; the contradiction themselves reveal the human hand the created the documents. In fact, sometimes the resolutions do an even better job of revealing the fallibility of the authors than the contradictions themselves.

Take, for instance, the reports of Judas' death. Matthew has Judas hanging himself, while Acts has Judas falling headlong and bursting open (rather a strange way to die). The standard apologetic is that Judas hanged himself, then the rope broke and the body fell and burst open. Let's assume that this "resolution" is accurate. Isn't it still odd that Acts would leave out such a significant detail? Wouldn't failing to report that actually manner of death -- hanging -- a very fallible human thing to do? No wonder people are confused, when such important facts are left out of the report.

The fact is that "resolving contradictions" do nothing to establish the literalist's contention that the scriptures are perfect. They aren't, even if it is conceded that the contradictions can be resolved.

EthnAlln

All very good points. Unfortunately, the obscurantism only gets worse at this point. Faced with all these contradictions, apologists will point out small discrepancies in current news accounts of events and argue that we have to accept the Bible as accurate because we believe (for example) Pearl Harbor was bombed back in December 1941, despite the contradictions, they say. I know, I know, there is a mountain of independent evidence about Pearl Harbor and only a handful of accounts of Biblical events; that fact will be dismissed out of hand. I long ago gave up trying to point out contradictions to people who try to evangelize me.

hatsoff

That's an interesting angle, but I'm not sure I buy it. The fallibility lies in the human interpretation, not necessarily in the Bible's language. Moreover, the autographs have been lost, and most or all apparent contradictions may have been introduced later by copyists or translators.

I'm certainly not in agreement that the Bible is infallible, whether you're an autograph believer or a KJVOist. However, you can't very well prove otherwise.

aa5874

FamilyMan, if you have a rope aroud your neck and the rope burst, you will fall feet first. The Bible states Judas fell 'headlong'.

No x-tian can resolve any contradiction in the Bible, to do that they must present documents, or verifiable evidence. The scholars that translated the Bible from Hebrew and Greek have done so with the most utmost care and deligence.

No one, without authorisation, can change any word in the written Bible. In a court of law, changing words is tantamount to tampering with evidence. In a court of law, witnesses are taken by their words, what is contradictory must remain and let the chips fall where they may.

The Christian Bible is filled with false prophesies, contradictions, inconsistencies, incoherent revelations and magical impossibilities, it cannot be resolved.

Every discrepancy in the Bible must be publicised so that the deception of the book be quickly resolved.

Family Man

The question isn't about whether the Bible is accurate; the question is about whether it is the perfect word of God. That accounts of human history contains errors should be a surprise to no one. That the perfect Bible contains errors destroys the argument that it is perfect. Not that the literalists will ever concede the point. We can still point out the obvious.

Family Man

And yours is a nice dodge. Language does mean something, and there are only so many interpretations that can be regarded as reasonable. Positing "this is how it might have been" scenarios does not establish the reasonableness of the literalist position. We can only judge what we have at hand, not speculations about what might have been.

No, but we can put a much better argument than the literalists can.

Family Man

I am quite aware of that. I just find quibbling with literalists over details to be a waste of time. After all, the literalist can always insert more speculation that Judas hung himself over a cliff, and when the rope broke, he caught his feet on the edge of the cliff, and plunged headlong over the edge. In fact, I've seen that very argument made. The point is that it doesn't matter whether they resolve them or not. The mere fact that there is a contradiction -- or an absurdity, or a piece of obvious fiction -- is enough to establish the fallible, and therefore human nature of the document.

There are those who will never agree with you, who will be happy to latch on to any pretense to maintain their belief system. I'm not arguing that Christian apologetics are at all convincing. I'm merely pointing out that there is an argument I don't see made that is far more difficult for Christians to counter. Why wasn't that detail reported accurately?

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just suggesting another way to approach the problem.

Diogenes the Cynic

No, it's in the Bible's language. The contradictions are often present in the plainest readings and no intepretation is required to spot them.
Even if this were true (which is highly doubtful), it wouldn't really mean much. The manuscripts available to us NOW contain contradictions and those are the manuscripts which we call the Bible. A hypothetical lost set of autographs without contradiction are not what is being discussed and critiqued. We're talking about what we HAVE and what we have contradicts itself.

pharoah

It's also our fallibility that causes us to believe that The Illiad is a myth, not Homer's language.

The original manuscript of The Illiad is also lost, and most or all apparent contradictions may have been introduced later by copyists or translators.

I'm certainly not in agreement that The Illiad is infallible. However, you can't very well prove otherwise.

EthnAlln

Great points! In fact, archaeology has proved that there was a city of Troy on the site of Hissarlyk, Turkey. That's just another example of how science, time and time again, confirms the truth of the Homeric gods. Oh, the blindness of these blinkered skeptics and atheists!