MrDarwin

This question is directed to any Christian who believes there is at least some truth in the Bible. I raised the same question in the <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000647" target="_blank">Death of Judas</a> discussion, but it has so far been ignored.

Critics claim that numerous contradictions are contained within the bible, but many Christians deny there are such contradictions, even when two passages seem to say completely different things (as with the two radically different accounts of what became of Judas after he betrayed Jesus).

Is there is anything that you would consider contradictory within the Bible? That is, two things that are so different as to be irreconcilable, that one or the other cannot be true? If there is, can you give us an example?

And if there isn't, what would it take to admit to something being contradictory in the Bible? That is, can you give us a hypothetical example of things you would find so irreconcilable as to represent true contradictions, one or the other of which must not be true?

[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

K

MrDarwin:

I think you should be more specific when you speak about contradictions. As Asha'man pointed out, the two accounts of Judas' death could be reconciled by adding the "detail" that Judas simply died twice. I and probably most others would contend that there is no good reason to suspect that that detail should be added to the story. This makes the definition of contraditions tough to get a handle on.

I'll take a stab at it. A contradiction occurs when two descriptions of a single entity or event differ so much that the missing details necessary to reconcile the two would not reasonably be missing from a genuine account.

I would say that the two accounts of Judas' death definitely constitute a contradiction. If Judas did indeed hang himself, it would be unreasonable to expect that someone might write about the death and even include details about what happened to the corpse without mentioning the hanging itself.

offa

offa;
Judas was crucified with Christ and Simon Magus. Pilate pardoned Theudas (the 4th man). Judas "hung himself" on the cross. He was incarcerated with Jesus and Simon (Simon was the angel, being a Samaritan chief priest). Judas "squealed" and was a traitor. He was interred alive along with the living Jesus and and the living Simon Magus. The cave was a latrine and had a window to throw decrement out to the shores of the Dead Sea below. Judas was hurled below and if he was not forced through this window he was taken out of the cave and thrown to his death below.

The problem with "scholars" today is that they read literally (small minds in big heads).

Amos

Some are quite swollen too.

Amos

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.

Vanderzyden

MrD,

I appreciate your questions, and I will answer them here. In the interest of maintaining focus, It didn't seem appropriate to address them in the other thread.

Is there something I would consider to be contradictory? Yes, sure. This was demonstrated in the "Judas" thread. I am willing to carefully consider contradictions. In fact, I welcome such challenges to my faith. However, I must dissappoint you and say that I have not yet found an example, despite my non-trivial efforts.

The way you phrase this line of inquiry leaves quite a bit of latitude. What is meant by "so different as to be irreconcilable"? Any supposed contradiction must go a great length to demonstrate a "black-and-white" contrast. At minimum, there must be sufficient negative overlap. There must be substantial negation in order to justify the charge of errancy or contradiction. Also, it would seems much more difficult to label passages "contradictory" if they are very short in length.

Vanderzyden

Doubting Didymus

I noticed that MrDarwin specifically asked for hypothetical examples. This should not be too hard, if what you claim is true.

leonarde

In a conversation with Douglas Bender some time ago I pointed out some discrepancies (ie at least apparent contradictions) in the empty tomb depictions in the Gospels. I'll try to recapitulate them:
On the initial discovery of the empty tomb
was it:
1) a)one woman?
b) a group of women?

2)Did she/they encounter a)the risen Jesus (mistaken at first for a gardener)?
b)an angel (reporting that Jesus had risen)?

3)When she/they reported this to the apostles did
a)they meet with utter indifference?
b)prompt Peter and one other apostle to immediately run to the tomb?

These discrepancies aren't hypothetical ones but
real ones.

Cheers!

Baidarka

leonarde
I appreciate your reasonable position regarding errant Biblical passages. In one of your posts you seemed to indicate that you have no problem with admitting to mistakes regarding trivial events which have no great theological consequences (please correct me if I misunderstand you).
“For me, it's not a matter of sheer numbers: it is a matter of the types of errors: some WOULD have an impact on theology (if they, the errors, could be established). Others, like the manner of Judas' death, don't really have any significance for the non-literalist (except insofar as they indicate a remoteness from the event described by the Evangelical author).”
What about contradictions which affect how we define religious practice and belief?

Matthew 5

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Do you see this statement as contradictory with other NT statements?
How do you reconcile this statement with later statements by Paul eliminating the same laws that Jesus was confirming?

Baidarka

Vanderzyden:
You said “The biblical skeptic must, in all fairness, apply the same analytical standards to the Bible as she does to other ancient texts.”
I would like to rephrase this to say that the Bible believer must, in all fairness apply the same analytical standards to the Bible as she/he does to any non-biblical text.
Is this statement acceptable to you?
Please do not ignore my post. I am sincerely trying to reason with you.