Vanderzyden

Surely you don't mean to imply that either of these forms of substitution are applicable to supposed biblical "contradictions".

If this is what you mean, then perhaps you have a genuine contradiction in mind. Please start another thread and highlight your best single "contradiction". The "best" one in recent weeks has been shown to be false in the <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000647" target="_blank">"Death of Judas" thread</a>.


Vanderzyden

Baidarka

Leonarde and All
Please bear with me if you have read this before or if you think that I’m being simplistic.
Back in the 1950s there was a Superman show on TV with a rather flabby Superman in baggy tights. The show had this incredible intro with this majestic fellow (George Reeves) with his hands on his hips and his cape blowing backwards. Images of speeding trains, the Globe, A flying Superman. There was a narration that went along with this montage of images. “It’s a bird. It’s a plane. It’s Superman”, “faster than a speeding bullet”… “able to leap over tall buildings in a single bound”.
Wait a minute. What’s this leaping stuff? Everybody knows that Superman flies!
Well yes, in the 1950s superman was flying but when the original superman was in the comics he was super strong but he couldn’t fly. He was depicted hopping after the bad guys. Hop………… Hop…………Hop.
It took several years for the writers to endow Superman with the power of flight.
Who ever wrote the intro to the TV show, slipped and left the anachronistic leaping in the narration.
This is an example of an accretion. It is a vestige of an earlier version of the story.
The original Jesus was probably depicted as the legitimate heir to King (Messiah) David’s Kingdom. Thus the 2 patrilineal genealogies relating Jesus to David. These contradictory genealogies than render themselves meaningless by denying that Jesus was Joseph’s son. Here we have two examples of how a later editor clumsily tried to change the meanings of the archaic passages to bring them into agreement with the new developments in the myth.
Matthew 5.17 is probably left from an earlier layer of the text, when Jesus’ followers still considered themselves Jews.
Whether you are appalled by my conjecture or not we are still left with a contradiction which you have not managed to explain away.

Slex

Vanderzyden, I am too busy right now to start a discussion on Biblical contradiction, which anyway won't get me anywhere, because by the methods you use you will always find a way out. My point was that with the same methods I can make equally "sound" explanations to alleged contradictions in other sacred texts. You will not accept them however, because you will not hesitate for a moment to apply double standart. You know, only the Bible is the word of God. The same Bible which fails in the most important thing - to tell me how to get saved. If the Bible was clear on this topic there wouldn't have been so many branches of Christianity (of course a lot of the reasons for this doesn't come only from disagreements on how to get saved). The fact is that it's quite a mess actually. I can accept that my mind is limited and (if the Bible is really divinely inspired) I am not able to understand some parts of the Bible (for example concerning God's nature), but I am supposed to be able to percieve CLEARLY how to get saved. If God is omniscient, he would have been able to foresee that the Bible will not be clear on the question of salvation and that it will be a bone of contentions among the so called Christians. If he foresaw this, but couldn't do otherwise, he is not much of omnipotent I think. Damn it, why all these verses, psalmes, pages, instead of writing just one sentence: "In order to get saved you sloud do this, this and this". And no more writings on the question in order to avoid possible different interpretations.

Ion

Let's see Radorth, about this:
with the Biblical contradiction that I posted below:
I read here a contradiction between Psalm 145:9 and Jeremiah 13:14, about one 'Lord':

how good is 'Lord' to the ones he destroys (Jeremiah 13:14), after it is claimed that he is good to all (Psalm 145:9) including the ones he destroys?

Answer: this is a Biblical contradiction about one 'Lord'.

Mathematics books, history books do not have contradictions, and they are written by reasonable humans, not by divinity like the Bible claims.

Conclusion: the Bible is not divine, and not reasonable.

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: Ion ]

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: Ion ]</p>

Vanderzyden

This accusation derives from one of two possibilities: either (a) you have not read at least one of the four gospels, or (b) you have read it and have not found what is in alignment with your presuppositions (i.e. you have your own idea about what it means to be saved).

Note: I don't want to fragment this thread, so, if you want to discuss this further, please start another thread.

Vanderzyden

leonarde

Posted by Grumpy: 1)Except in my most self-absorbed moments, I'm
not in the habit of determining what God would or
should do. I'll leave that to those wiser than me.

2)The emphasis here has been on a few verses in
the 27 books of the NT. But what about what all
that the 4 evangelists and Saint Paul agree on (ie the unambiguous part)??? Like the Crucifixion and the Resurrection: you know the core of the Christian faith.

Cheers!

Ion

Vanderzyden,
the gospels have contradictions I pointed out, and historically they are not accepted for their claims.

So, your post amounts to:
nothing.

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: Ion ]</p>

Slex

Obviously you don't get it, do you? I have read at least one of the Gospels, but in this case my particular interpretation is irrelevant. I could have well reached the same conclusion even without reading the Bible at all though. I can say so just by observing the fuss among the various denominations. The fact is, that there are different opinions on how to get saved, different opinions on the most important from humans' point of view topic in the Bible. And it has nothing to do with my take on it. And it doesn't have to be bluntly contradicting neither. All it has to do here, is to be vague and to allow for different interpretations. Because every interpretation different from the Truth in this case* will be fatal. Accusing me of not reading the Bible, or that it is not in line with my presuppositions, will not help you much, because regardless of my understanding of salvation, the so called Christians are not unanimous on it anyway, and they have different views on the question. And even if some parts of them are correct, this means the rest of them are going to Hell. And they are going to Hell in the literal meaning of the phrase. Just because this omnipotent God wasn't able to give a straightforward instruction on how to get saved.

* Unlike for example in the case when Jesus heals the man - is it when he is going into or out of town? Maybe he healed two different men, or maybe it was a twin city and the man was standing on the border, so when Jesus healed him he was both going out of one part of the city and coming into the other (Note: these are not my interpretations, these are interpretations that I have been offered by Christians in response to this alleged contradiction). So, an inerranist can just pick one of these explanations and declare that this is not an irreconcilable contradiction and that it could have happened in one of the already mentioned ways, so it doesn't render the Bible errant. Note however, that if it is not a contradiction, it couldn't have happened both ways neither, because they are both mutually exclusive. The inerranist can choose one of them only and stick to it or maybe he is not at all obliged to choose among them at all - for him it suffices that it could have been one of these ways, no matter which one, and to know that the Bible is inerrant. Speaking of the salvation however, they don't have this luxury because they have to choose. It is not enough for them only to know that the Bible is inerrant on this question. They have to make a choice and it has to be the right one. Because if the Christian thought that Jesus healed two men, when he actually in fact healed one man only on the border of the twin cities, this won't be a mistake with gross (if any) consequences, because even mistaken in his interpretation the inerranist wil have kept his inerranist view. When salvation comes into play however, it is not the same to think that in order to get saved all you have to do is to have faith, becuase if it turns out that apart from just having faith you should have been baptised into water, then you are into big trouble. Or if you think that salvations comes through faith only, but in the end it turns out that apart from faith you needed works as well, in order to be saved, an you didn't have them... Well, you know what follows...

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: Slex ]</p>

Amos

Ion I don't have time to do these things but when I say the the bible is inerrant I also mean that I can undo all the contradictions. This just means that if you find one, it is your problem.

Ion

Whatever terminology you like.

The fact is, the Bible based on its many contradictions, is not the truth.
There are books better than the Bible.