Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MrDarwin · 10-11-2002, 11:57 AM

Here is the full text of Matthew 19:3-9:

Quote:

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

I find this interesting because it suggests that the OT laws were laws created by and for men, not laws of God: "Moses permitted you", not "God permitted you".

Vanderzyden · 10-11-2002, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrDarwin:
<strong>Here is the full text of Matthew 19:3-9:
...

I find this interesting because it suggests that the OT laws were laws created by and for men, not laws of God: "Moses permitted you", not "God permitted you".</strong>

Please explain how it "suggests" the laws being man-made.

Also, we must ask: To which of "OT laws" are you referring, the commandments, the Mosaic, or the Levitical? Do you know the difference?

Vanderzyden

Baidarka · 10-11-2002, 12:51 PM

Leonarde
You said “. I agree that if we had ONLY that
statement by Jesus we might think that he was an
Orthodox Jew, but an orthodox Jew only.”
I assume by Orthodox Jew you mean a traditional follower of Jewish law. If so I agree with the first part of this statement. I’m not sure what you mean by “…only an Orthodox Jew” (I think that you should find a new term because this name refers to a particular modern Jewish sect). I assume that this is a super secessionist reference to the Jewish Jesus vs. the Jesus of the New Israel.
You are saying that you can reinterpret this statement in the light of other statements. You even go as far as to reinterpret this statement in light of Peter’s Dream which you claim might have been inspired by the post crucifixion Jesus.
I would say that the statement stands on its’ own and it stands in direct contradiction to the other statements.
The strange thing is that you agree with me, as your statement on top reveals.

You say “Ergo another, looser interpretation seems in order.
For those who are not absolutists....”
This idea of loose interpretation is a quite pragmatic way of dealing with contradictions within a religion, but I am not one of your coreligionists and this is a discussion about what constitutes a Biblical contradiction. I believe that this is one with major theological and historic implications.

Grumpy · 10-11-2002, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:
There is a distinction between logical contradiction and unreasonable discrepancy. A logical contradiction between {A} and {B} exists when the truth of {A} necessitates the falsity of {B}.

An important point, and probably the source of much frustration between skeptics and inerrantists. What a skeptic calls a contradiction (one woman at the tomb vs. three women) is logically open to accomodation; neither report negates the possibility of the other.

What skeptics need to find are instances of the Bible saying A and not-A. There are few, if any. OTTOMH, I can think of Jesus' advice on doing good deeds: publicly (Matthew 5:16) vs. secretly (Matthew 6:1). But this isn't a statement of categorical fact that entails a logical contradiction.

Even if it did, I don't see how that would make a difference. I mean, is Jesus God or man? Both simultaneously? Whatever.

Sojourner553 · 10-12-2002, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amos:
<strong>I am convinced that the bible is inerrant and if contradions are evident our interpretation is wrong or they exist as a result of translation errors.</strong>

But then -- in FINAL form -- they are still errant.

How do you know whether lots and lots and lots of translation and interpretation errors did not occur.

Obviously there must be a bunch because of the thousands of sects that CAN'T EVEN AGREE ON WHAT IT SAYS/REALLY MEANS.

To me, this is why there is obviously a lack of something divine here: That is, people don't generally quibble over obeying or not obeying God's rules! What they fight over is discerning what the heck are the RULES!#@

Sojourner

-RRH- · 10-12-2002, 07:43 PM

Allow me to post the contents of the Book of RRH. It is a short book, but it holds great wisdom. And it contains no contradictions.

Quote:

1:1 All horses are black.

1:2 Not all horses are black.

1:3 Some horses are brown.

There are some people who think that there is a contradiction between 1:1 and the other verses. But this contradiction only occurs when 1:1 is interpreted to mean that all horses are black. We must examine the verse within a larger context, taking the other verses into account.

For example, verse 1:2 says not all horses are black, while verse 1:3 says some horses are brown. In light of these other verses, verse 1:1 could not possibly mean that all horses are black.

Therefore, there are no contradictions in the Book of RRH.

Baidarka · 10-13-2002, 04:57 AM

RRH
Therefore if :

J says X
and
J says not-X
and
J says not-X
and
J says not-X
then the first statement X no longer means X
Now I understand.
So rather then call this a contradiction we should look at X and not-X in proportion and simply average them into mostly not-X
Thank you for clarifying this for me.

leonarde · 10-13-2002, 07:32 AM

And what if a given horse is of intermediate color: ie neither EXACTLY brown NOR exactly black?

Baidarka · 10-13-2002, 08:16 AM

If it is an intermediate color then it is not Black "1:2 Not all horses are black." but there is no need to play with semantics here. The statement is unambiguous. It is a black horse and not an intermediate one.

Cretinist · 10-13-2002, 08:18 AM

Obviously verse 1:1 simply means that all horses, at one time, in some instance, are black in some way. This no doubt means all horses have spot on them which is black, and if they don't, then they're probably evil horses. It is the stupid skeptic that assumes verse 1:1 necessarily means that all horses are completely and always black in color.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-11-2002, 12:51 PM	#23
Baidarka Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 590	Leonarde You said “. I agree that if we had ONLY that statement by Jesus we might think that he was an Orthodox Jew, but an orthodox Jew only.” I assume by Orthodox Jew you mean a traditional follower of Jewish law. If so I agree with the first part of this statement. I’m not sure what you mean by “…only an Orthodox Jew” (I think that you should find a new term because this name refers to a particular modern Jewish sect). I assume that this is a super secessionist reference to the Jewish Jesus vs. the Jesus of the New Israel. You are saying that you can reinterpret this statement in the light of other statements. You even go as far as to reinterpret this statement in light of Peter’s Dream which you claim might have been inspired by the post crucifixion Jesus. I would say that the statement stands on its’ own and it stands in direct contradiction to the other statements. The strange thing is that you agree with me, as your statement on top reveals. You say “Ergo another, looser interpretation seems in order. For those who are not absolutists....” This idea of loose interpretation is a quite pragmatic way of dealing with contradictions within a religion, but I am not one of your coreligionists and this is a discussion about what constitutes a Biblical contradiction. I believe that this is one with major theological and historic implications.

10-13-2002, 04:57 AM	#27
Baidarka Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 590	RRH Therefore if : J says X and J says not-X and J says not-X and J says not-X then the first statement X no longer means X Now I understand. So rather then call this a contradiction we should look at X and not-X in proportion and simply average them into mostly not-X Thank you for clarifying this for me.

10-13-2002, 07:32 AM	#28
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	And what if a given horse is of intermediate color: ie neither EXACTLY brown NOR exactly black?

10-13-2002, 08:16 AM	#29
Baidarka Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 590	If it is an intermediate color then it is not Black "1:2 Not all horses are black." but there is no need to play with semantics here. The statement is unambiguous. It is a black horse and not an intermediate one.

10-13-2002, 08:18 AM	#30
Cretinist Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Hell Posts: 399	Obviously verse 1:1 simply means that all horses, at one time, in some instance, are black in some way. This no doubt means all horses have spot on them which is black, and if they don't, then they're probably evil horses. It is the stupid skeptic that assumes verse 1:1 necessarily means that all horses are completely and always black in color.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.