Steven Carr

Resolving contradictions is just a matter of word games.

It should be pointed out that the same people who can resolve totally contradictary statements , can also find contradictions in statements which say exactly the same thing.

It is all just part of their games. That all resolving contradictions is.

Take the following 2 statements :-

Acts 23:8 'The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.'

Richard Carrier , writing on page 108 of 'The Empty Tomb' , 'In contrast, the Sadducees denied any kind of resurrection altogether, denying even the existence of spirits, angels or souls, and they denied the entire concept of fate in favor (sic) of a doctrine of chance and free will.'

It is really , really hard to find a contradiction between Acts 23:8 saying the Sadduccees denied they were angels or spirits and Carrier saying the Sadducees denied the existence of spirits and angels.

'The Sadducees do not believe in angels' is simply not a contradiction of 'the Sadducees do not believe in angels'.

Yet Chrstian apologists can find a contradiction between sentences saying exactly the same thing!

Christopher Price does just that in
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2...bout-what.html

Amazing!

Final proof that apologists are only interested in word games?

EthnAlln

Well, the guy's interpretation of the Bible may be wrong, but in his interpretation it isn't the existence of angels that the Sadducees denied, only that people are resurrected as angels. So, he's not being absurd when he accuses Carrier of misunderstanding the Sadducees.

No wait, I take it back. ANYBODY who seriously believes in the reality of angels and considers angelology to be a subject is being absurd. Within that world on the other side of the looking glass, he's not being absurd. It's just that his whole world is absurd.

Steven Carr

But Carrier just repeated what the Bible said , that the Sadducees denied the existence of angels. And Carrier repeated the Biblical claim in almost exactly the same words.

How can that be a misunderstanding?

Jon Curry

I think what you're saying, Family Man, is that if there is in the Bible what appears to be a contradiction (like Judas falling headlong and hanging himself), this proves that the Bible is definitely not inspired by God, because if God wrote it he wouldn't allow such confusing statements.

That certainly does make sense, but like a "supposed" Bible contradiction, this isn't necessarily so. The inerrantist does not claim that the Bible is perfectly clear on all points. He simply claims that the Bible does not contain errors. Why would God allow such confusing terminology? It could possibly be because of the nature of inspiration. The human author if Scripture is not simply God's typerwriter. The text is written by BOTH God and man. Things written by the apostle Peter have Peter's writing style, not God's. Things written by Paul have Paul's writing style, not God's. Yet God is in a sense guiding them by not allowing them to err. But he might allow them to be confusing.

Yes, the Christian will always have some possible crazy explanation of a text that appears contradictory. But this doesn't mean you shouldn't take time and continue to point such things out. This is exactly what extracted me from Christianity.

In my case I knew the crazy explanations were crazy, but I accepted them anyway because my argument for inerrancy was based on other grounds. As I debated other Christians (Catholics in particular) I noticed that they always had a crazy explanation for things that contradicted their theology as well. For instance, Scripture indicates that Mary had children besides Jesus, but RC's say she was forever a virgin. Well, they'd say that while the text says "brothers" it really means "cousins" or "half-brother". Or they'd say Mary was sinless, yet Scripture has Jesus rebuking her, and even St Augustine attributes sin to her, such as vanity. They'd always come up with some crazy theory. What Farrell Till calls the "How it could Have Been" scenario.

So it bothered me. Why is it OK for me to come up with these crazy scenarios when I defend inerrancy, but it's wrong for them to do the same thing with regards to their works-based false religion that is leading them to hell? How can a just God send me to heaven but an RC to hell when he's doing the same thing I am? I realized that I was guilty of the very things I accused them of, so I abandoned inerrancy and ultimately Christianity.

Family Man

Not quite. I'm saying that the existence of errors in the Bible refute the argument that the Bible must be the infallible work of God. It is certainly possible that there is a God who permitted an imperfect work to be published in his name, but how would we know? An imperfect work that looked just like it was wrought by humans is no evidence of a perfect God.

Contradictions are errors. Look at the Judas' death apologetic again. Even if it is true, somebody left out a very important piece of information, resulting in a very misleading statement. That's an error in anybody's book.

Yes, he might. But it is no evidence that God exists either.


I don't disagree with that. But it also doesn't hurt to point out that, even if the apologetic is correct, we're still left with a crazy explanation.

Good for you, but understand that I'm simply pointing out the flip-side of your argument. There's no harm in pointing out that their absurdity works against them both coming and going, is there?

HarryStine

Oddly, my Vulgate says, "et suspensus (and being hung) crepuit medius (the middle was disturbed) et diffusa sunt omnia viscera eius (and all his bowels flowed out)." I understand that other translations read differently, but at least we have a much more solid basis for what might otherwise be viewed as quibbling.

aa5874

Jon Curry, after reading your post, it augments my theory that all believers in the Christian Gods are continuously troubled by inconsistencies and contradictions in the Christian Bible. I know because I once believed.

The burden of resolving 'fairy tales' will wear you down. The more one reads the Christian Bible, the more flagrant the errors become, and it doesn't really take long for you to realise something is wrong with the Book.

Family Man

Yes, oddly, as the New International Version says:

And the New American Bible says:

and the KJV said:

I'm no expert on bible translations, but do you think maybe...just maybe...that someone noticed the contradiction and added something that didn't belong into the Vulgate? Which would mean you have no basis at all. I doubt all those other translations would have left out that little detail if it were in the original Greek.

EthnAlln

The issue is whether the Bible does in fact say that the Sadducees denied the existence of angels. The literalist was arguing that they believed in angels, but "they said that there was no resurrection, neither as angels nor...". In other words, the argument was over the correct interpretation of the text.

EthnAlln

My Greek New Testament says, "elakesen mesos, kai exekhuthe panta ta splagna autou," which means (in literal order) "gave way [the] midsection, and gushed out all the viscera of him." The root of "elakesen" means to crack or tear. "splagna" is the source of "spleen". So he didn't, as I always used to think, merely lose control of his bowels when he hanged himself. (That's an unpleasant feature of hanging, quite often, I'm told).