Mike(ATL)

If I show those who run this site or the original author why the biblical contradictions in the Infidel Library are not contradictions will they be removed? Just want to make sure I'm not talking to a wall were I to put some work into it. If they were to be removed or atleast have a link to the other side of the argument there I would find it to be worth my while to take those on one at a time. The few that I have looked at have been simple matters of translation and context.

-DM-

First, the Feedback FAQ requires that you provide the title of the article and the name of the author. You provided neither. Without that information it is not possible to answer your questions with the same degree of accuracy as would otherwise be possible.

On the other hand, if I were the author of the article, and if you could conclusively demonstrate that some of the alleged contradictions were, in fact, not contradictions, then I would either remove those alleged contradictions or correct them. If all of the alleged contradictions were conclusively proved to be bogus, then I would want the article to come down. However, depending on which article you have in mind, the author may either be unavailable--or even deceased. Those factors could and likely would have a bearing on what was done about the alleged errors in the article.

Keep in mind, however, that it is not sufficient to provide ad hoc, how-it-might-have-been scenarios or "explanations" to resolve alleged contradictions. You need to conclusively prove the author's error(s) and/or to demonstrate why it is that your interpretation should be taken as correct.

With those considerations in mind, you are welcome to begin. Perhaps you should start with your best shot at just a few alleged contradictions so that you and/or the author don't waste time and/or effort on a fruitless endeavor.

Regards,
-DM-

Mike(ATL)

Ok, for example:

First of all the context: "The LORD is good to all" is from a Psalm of praise written by David. David here is praising God for characteristics he has observed. The passage here from Jeremiah is a warning to Israel and Judah that he will not show pity to them for their wickedness.

What does the "good" in "good to all" mean? That God treats everyone whether sinning against him or not "good?" No, of course not. See what David says in that very same Psalm:

PSA 145:20 The LORD keeps all who love Him, But all the wicked He will destroy.

God never denies this about Himself, by His nature he must punish sin without some kind of sacrifice. In fact when He passes in front of Moses He described himself in this way

EXO 34:6-7 Then the LORD passed by in front of him and proclaimed, "The LORD, the LORD God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations."

OK, I believe I have shown that these verses labeled as a contradiction do not contradict each other. Definitely not to the point where you can use it to say the bible is errant. Therefore it should be removed from the article. If you disagree, show me where I am wrong. Thanks

-DM-

Thank you for providing the title of the article, A List of Biblical Contradictions, by Jim Meritt. Assuming that the e-mail address shown is still good, the author has been notified of your feedback in order to give him a chance to respond for himself. If we do not hear from him within a reasonable period of time (or if the e-mail bounces), then someone else will respond. You might therefore want to check back from time to time for a further response following this post.

-DM-

[Edited to fix links. -DM-]

Jim Meritt

My only response is that it is a textual contradiction within the document listed.

I find it interesting that people SIMULTANEOUSLY (1) use outside guidance to override what is written and (2) declare that the referenced document is THE ultimate guide. Pick one.

If you disagree with the original document, please feel free to comment on that. But using outside documentation to resolve contradictions in the referenced document (aka "the Bible") is invalid in context.

Please feel free to absolve yourself.

Mike(ATL)

Jim, thanks for the response.

I assume the "people" you are referring to is myself and I assume the "outside guidance" you are referring to is the context I spoke of concerning the referenced verses. You cannot read the "original document" just by itself without realizing who wrote it and who the author is writing to. That would be like reading the Declaration of Independence without knowing who wrote it and who it was written to, you wouldn't know what was going on.

That said, in this particular case even knowing context outside of what is said in those chapters is not necessary. As I demonstrated in my first post, from the rest of that Psalm 145 the author clearly states that God punishes wickedness.

Maybe you just did not look into the surrounding text which is understandable considering the size of your list. I don't think it's asking too much to remove that one "contradiction" from your list. I should warn you though that if you are willing to do that I intend to go through the rest of your list and demonstrate how they are also not contradictions. You can certainly have other reasons to believe that the Bible is not believable or whatever it is you believe but this particular said contradiction is not one of them.

-DM-

Mike(ATL):

Jim Meritt told me that he doesn't really care to address the same thing over and over again. What I propose, therefore, is to offer my own take on this one alleged contradiction, then move this topic to the Biblical Criticism & History forum in order to facilitate open discussion. Inasmuch as you are a registered user, you can take part in any ensuing discussion there.

--

You were to show why "the biblical contradictions in the Infidel Library are not contradictions."

There are several articles in the Library which mention biblical contradictions, of course, but you later identified A List of Biblical Contradictions, by Jim Meritt as what you had in mind. I then suggested, "you should start with your best shot at just a few alleged contradictions so that you and/or the author don't waste time and/or effort on a fruitless endeavor." You chose the following one [alleged] contradiction--which I would assume represented your very best shot at fulfilling your challenge--to begin your apologetic effort:

You then provided context from PSA 145:20, "The LORD keeps all who love Him, But all the wicked He will destroy," as well as unsubstantiated assertions (what Jim Meritt might label as "outside guidance") regarding the alleged nature of "God."

Given the variations in translation of these verses from Hebrew to English, given the resulting uncertainty regarding the precise intended meaning of those verses, and given the fact that there are several possible meanings of the word 'contradiction,' what is and is not a contradiction is, to at least some extent, in the eye of the beholder.

• American Heritage Dictionary:
  contradiction
• 1. a. The act of contradicting. b. The state of being contradicted.
• 2. A denial.
• 3. Inconsistency; discrepancy.
• 4. Something that contains contradictory elements.
  
  Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:
  contradiction
• 1 act or an instance of contradicting
• 2 a: a proposition, statement, or phrase that asserts or implies both the truth and falsity of something
  b: a statement or phrase whose parts contradict each other <a round square is a contradiction in terms>
• 3 a: logical incongruity
  b: a situation in which inherent factors, actions, or propositions are inconsistent or contrary to one another

--

So, have you demonstrated that the alleged contradiction between PSA 145:9 and JER 13:14 is NOT a contradiction, that there is no inconsistency? No, not in my opinion--not even close. Why? Because there is what seems to me to be a glaring inconsistency between these two statements--and the fact that "the Lord" would punish the wicked does not resolve that inconsistency:

1) The Lord is good to all.
2) I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

However, if you want to believe that the fact that the Lord will allegedly destroy the wicked--including, apparently, all the inhabitants of Israel and/or Judah, parents and children alike--somehow absolves him from showing any pity, excuses him from showing any mercy, that is OK with me, but I don't buy it. After all, it would be quite possible to "destroy the wicked" and still show pity, compassion, and mercy--especially to the children, not all of whom would necessarily be considered wicked.

Further, if we do take the context of the Bible as a whole, it becomes readily apparent to me that your apologetics cannot possibly explain the inconsistency (a term which I prefer to "contradiction") between PSA 145:9 and the despicable behavior attributed to "the Lord" with regard to Job.

--

Now a few comments with regard to two of your other assertions:

I disagree that this is the case, but if it were the case that we needed to know who wrote the original individual documents which now make up the Bible in order to understand the Bible, we would be in real trouble given that the authors of many of the documents are unknown and given that many of the documents which have traditionally been attributed to one author are actually the work of multiple authors, redactors, and editors. As an example, the preamble to the Book of Psalms in the New Oxford Annotated Bible says this: "The tradition that David wrote all the psalms is much later than the book itself. Interior evidence shows that the Psalter is the product of many minds during many centuries."

I'm glad that you mentioned this passage. I don't see this as an example of "the Lord" being "good to all" or demonstrating "his tender mercies ... over all his works." This reprehensible behavior attributed to "the Lord" reminds me of yet another such example, 2KI 2:23-24, where forty-two children are mauled and killed, presumably according to the will of God, for having jeered at "a man of God."

-DM-

Mike(ATL)

Thanks for the well thought out (which is more than I can say for Merritt) reply DM, let's deal with the first said contradiction before we start talking about who wrote what and talking about what happened with Job and the bears mauling children.

The reason I picked that contradiction was because it was the first one on the list of the first article I saw, not because I thought it would be the easiest. When I say something isn't a contradiction I mean it is not a contradiction to the point where it shows that the bible is errant.

I did not bring up Psalms 145:20 just to show that God would punish the wicked. I brought up that verse to show that when you read the rest of the Psalm you can see that David (or whoever) was not trying to tell us that God is nice to all people at all times. If he meant that he thought God was nice to everyone he would not have said soon after that God punishes the wicked. So can we agree at least that this is not a case of one author thinking one thing about God and another author thinking another? Therefore this is not an inconsistency where conflicting accounts are given but what is believed to be an inconsistency in the nature of God.

A better verse to demonstrate this "contradiction" would be the verse I gave where God describes himself to Solomon

EXO 34:6-7 Then the LORD passed by in front of him and proclaimed, "The LORD, the LORD God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations."

How could a compassionate God take the sins of the fathers out on his kids? Even this would not be biblical errancy though since the contradiction exists in one verse. God fully admits this about himself and it's just a matter of understanding why.

My original intention of bringing this up though was to demonstrate that the original two verses do not demonstrate the errancy of the Bible. Before I go on to address the apparent contradiction in God's nature can we agree that the original verses are not a contradiction that can be used as evidence to demonstrate the errancy of the bible?

Wayne Delia

No, of course not. The first verse asserts that "the Lord is good to all," while the second verse apparently rationalizes the reasons why the Lord isn't good to all. If Psalm 145:9 was not a contradiction of Psalm 145:20 or Jeremiah 13:14, it would read something like this: "The LORD is good to all, except the wicked: and his tender mercies are over all his works, except when He is punishing the wicked." One immediate problem, of course, is that sweetness-and-light verses like Psalm 145:9 (as is) are used to "sell" Christianity as a loving, tolerant religion, and once the convert has bought in, nasty verses such as Psalm 145:20 or Jeremiah 13:14 represent the "fine print" of the "bait-and-switch" false advertising.

WMD

GakuseiDon

But isn't that the meaning behind that Psalm anyway, if taken as a whole?