B. H. Manners

Many apologists have offered "how it could have been" scenerios to us in order to reconcile contradictions in the Bible. While I applaud the believers for wanting to defend their faith, I must say I know that their "how it could have been" strategy is condemned by their own Bibles.

Various places in the Bible warn against adding or subtracting to the word, whether on paper or verbally. The most famous verse comes from the last chapter of Revelation:

" I warn anyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book:If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes away the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

Deuteronomy 4:2 states "Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you. (Now, it says not to add or take away from COMMANDS, but surely it in principle refers to anything in the Bible historical, poetic, and prophetic).

Also,

Deuteronomy 12:32 "See that you do all that I command you, do not add to it or take away from it."

The problem with "how it could have been" scenerios is that they do indeed "add to" information given in the supposedly inspired texts. Also, a "how it could have been" is just that-a how it could be, nothing more or less. It is not inspired nor is it necessarily the reality of what happened in a particular situation. If any apologist dares say otherwise, let them take a pen, write their hypothetical situation into the actual Biblical text, print copies of Bibles with their addition and call it the inspired word of God.

Granted, a how it could have been scenerio may indeed describe what happened accurately, but their is no way for the apologist to know this for a fact. It is just an act of a good imagination, nothing more, nothing less . Unless the apologist can provide absolute objective proof that his/her scenerio is what actually happened in a given alleged contradiction, the scenerio fails. The apologist actually dares to speak for God when God did not inspire him to and thus the apologist incurrs the curse found in the last chapter of Revelation qouted above.

[ November 15, 2002: Message edited by: BH ]</p>

B. H. Manners

This thread was started with a respectful goodwill towards both believers and unbelievers on this board.

Douglas J. Bender

BH,

No, the "how it could have been" strategy is not condemned by the Bible. When the Bible warns against "adding or subtracting" anything to the "Word", it means presenting anything beyond what is written AS God's Word or as God's specific teaching. It doesn't say anything about trying to understand how one or more scenarios can be reasonably explained within a "natural" scenario. I'm truly surprised that you'd even think that you have a case here.

Note that the warning is dealing with the "prophecies of this book", and that it is adding or subtracting to those prophecies which would call down upon a person those plagues. And it is implicitly clear that this would be their punishment only if they were knowingly adding to those prophecies in the Book of Revelation, and this does not include adding explanations for what those prophecies might mean, by the way.

I will grant this, for the sake of argument (and because it's almost certainly the correct way to understand God's intent here). However, again, this does not mean that it is forbidden to hypothesize various possible explanations for various passages of the Bible - if one took it to this, unreasonable, extreme, then anyone who teaches anything from the Bible or about the Bible which is not a direct quote from the Bible is being disobedient to God's command. And I would think that this is just a plain silly position to hold.

No, they do not do so, BH. And they do not do so because they do not pretend that the scenarios proposed are fact - the scenarios are merely presented as reasonable possibilities. That is no more against God's command than hypothesizing roughly what David's life as a shepherd, and youngest son of eight sons, might have been like.

Precisely. So?

Correct. What is the point?

I know of no apologist who would even think to say otherwise. This sounds like some kind of strawman.

The whole point of using a "how it could have been" scenario is to show that what might appear to be a contradiction is not NECESSARILY so. You seem to "grant" this, but then act as though such scenarios are of no use since there is no way of determining if they were actually the case. The point is not determining what actually happened, since that is clearly impossible merely using the given texts - the point is trying to determine if an apparent contradiction MUST be a contradiction. Showing that a POSSIBLE and reasonable explanation exists is to show that an apparent contradiction does NOT need to be a contradiction. Therefore, if such an explanation is shown to exist, then it cannot be the case that a contradiction has been proven to occur.

Absolutely wrong. (And, "scenario" is spelled "scenario", not "scenerio".) See my preceding explanation of what is involved in determining if an apparent contradiction is proven to be an actual contradiction.

Not in the least. I know of no apologist who would claim to be "speaking for God" (in the sense of being infallibly inspired) when presenting a "how it could have been" scenario. And merely presenting such a scenario does not "add or subtract" to God's Word - it merely seeks to understand God's Word, and to explain it for us mere, fallible and limited, humans. If someone was to conjecture that David used a steak-knife to cut off a piece of Saul's garment in the cave (maybe the Bible says what David used - I'm just giving this as a hypothetical example), yet the Bible did not say what David used, merely hypothesizing about what David might have used, in order to explain to the curious how David could have cut off a garment in a cave, would not be to "add" anything to the Bible. If, however, the apologist claimed that this was an infallible fact, and sought to have it included as part of God's Word, then he or she would be in trouble.

I am honestly amazed that anyone would argue that possible and reasonable explanations which would reconcile two accounts, whether in the Bible or some other non-fiction book, would not be sufficient to show that a contradiction between those accounts had not been proven. Note that those explanations are not claimed to have proven that no contradiction exists - they merely show that no contradiction has been proven. And if no contradiction has been proven, then one cannot validly claim to have found a contradiction, since there is the reasonable possibility (shown by the possible and reasonble explanation which reconciles the accounts) that it is no contradiction.

In Christ,

Douglas

B. H. Manners

Sorry, my long post needed some more work. It will be up again in a minute.

[ November 16, 2002: Message edited by: BH ]</p>

B. H. Manners

BH:
Many apologists have offered "how it could have been" scenarios to us in order to reconcile contradictions in the Bible. While I applaud the believers for wanting to defend their faith, I must say I know that their "how it could have been" strategy is condemned by their own Bibles.
Various places in the Bible warn against adding or subtracting to the word, whether on paper or verbally.

Mr. Bender:
No, the "how it could have been" strategy is not condemned by the Bible. When the Bible warns against "adding or subtracting" anything to the "Word", it means presenting anything beyond what is written AS God's Word or as God's specific teaching. It doesn't say anything about trying to understand how one or more scenarios can be reasonably explained within a "natural" scenario. I'm truly surprised that you'd even think that you have a case here.

BH:
There are two ways to add to "the word." One, you can take a pen an add stuff to the text that was not originally there. Two, you can make up extra-biblical theories to explain so called contradictions. This is adding to the word even if not in the pen-on-paper form, regardless of what you claim to the contrary, because you are adding details to the original story that are not inspired by the Holy Spirit (which you admit in effect). You admit your theories may be wrong and I have heard many rationalizations over the years for a variety of contradictions which contradict themselves! Until someone presents a scenario that is absolutely and objectively proven to be inspired i.e. the one and only explanation, I stick with there being contradictions in the Bible.
Mr. Bender, cite me one scenario I am bound to abide by.
Mr. Bender, please provide absolute objective proven true scenarios for many claimed contradictions of the Bible. Provide how we would know the "true" explanatory scenario from other "false" scenarios in an absolute objective way.
Mr. Bender, the fact you have to have scenarios to "help" the Bible out seems to say to me that the Bible is a poorly written book (same could be said for other books needing scenarios to explain away unclear or contradictory material).

BH:
The most famous verse comes from the last chapter of Revelation: "I warn anyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes away the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."

Mr. Bender continues:
Note that the warning is dealing with the "prophecies of this book", and that it is adding or subtracting to those prophecies which would call down upon a person those plagues. And it is implicitly clear that this would be their punishment only if they were knowingly adding to those prophecies in the Book of Revelation, and this does not include adding explanations for what those prophecies might mean, by the way.

BH continues:
Mr. Bender, please tell us what the absolute objective true interpretation of those prophecies are. The people who received the letter were able to understand what they referred to as well as the apostle John. If they did not what mortal in the past did in an absolute objective sense?
Yes, the quote from Revelation is referring to adding to "prophecies." Does the fact that Revelation only condemns adding to prophesies and Deuteronomy only condemns adding to commands mean we are able to add anything to our hearts desire to the parts of the Bible that are not of a prophetic and command nature? Can I erase where it says that David was a shepherd when a young man and instead say he was a lawyer? Or, if erasing "shepherd" is wrong, can I go around saying David was a lawyer before becoming king (as long as I do not deny his shepherding) but it just was not included in the book? After all I am doing nothing you are not doing with your “scenarios.”

BH:
Deuteronomy 4:2 states "Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you. (Now, it says not to add or take away from COMMANDS, but surely it in principle refers to anything in the Bible historical, poetic, and prophetic).

Mr. Bender:
I will grant this, for the sake of argument (and because it's almost certainly the correct way to understand God's intent here). However, again, this does not mean that it is forbidden to hypothesize various possible explanations for various passages of the Bible - if one took it to this, unreasonable, extreme, then anyone who teaches anything from the Bible or about the Bible which is not a direct quote from the Bible is being disobedient to God's command. And I would think that this is just a plain silly position to hold

BH:
Is it okay for me to go around saying David was a lawyer when a young man as long as I did not erase the text that says he was a shepherd and do not deny he did some shepherd work? If not, why should anyone accept me saying that David was a lawyer anymore than we should accept your "scenarios"? You have no more absolute objective evidence for your scenarios than I do for the fact that David was engaged in the legal profession as a youth before he became king.
Again, it seems to me that any book that has to have scenarios explain it away is not a very well written book. The author did not do a very good job writing it.

BH:
Also, Deuteronomy 12:32 "See that you do all that I command you, do not add to it or take away from it." The problem with "how it could have been" scenarios is that they do indeed "add to" information given in the supposedly inspired texts

Mr. Bender:
No, they do not do so, BH. And they do not do so because they do not pretend that the scenarios proposed are fact - the scenarios are merely presented as reasonable possibilities. That is no more against God's command than hypothesizing roughly what David's life as a shepherd, and youngest son of eight sons, might have been like.

BH:
So I take it that you have no objections to me hypothesizing about David's legal career before he became king and all the different cases he solved between giant slaying and lion killings? We are not bound by your scenarios. They are not a source of authority because they are only your opinion so you say. However, the way believers get mad when we reject scenarios makes me think you do put them on par with the so called inspired texts.

BH:
Also, a "how it could have been" is just that - a how it could be, nothing more or less.

Bender:
Precisely. So?

BH:
I appreciate you conceding that "how it could have been" situations do not refute contradictions in the Bible. I think I am going to change my mind on a scenario possibly explaining away a contradiction. I have added why I now do to the bottom of this post.

BH:
It is not inspired nor is it necessarily the reality of what happened in a particular situation.

Bender:
Correct. What is the point?

BH:
The point is you may yet make "Internet Infidels Unbeliever of the Year". We have a month and a half left to work on you! Again, you admit that the scenario is nothing we are bound by.

BH:
If any apologist dares say otherwise, let them take a pen, write their hypothetical situation into the actual Biblical text, print copies of Bibles with their addition and call it the inspired word of God.

Bender:
I know of no apologist who would even think to say otherwise. This sounds like some kind of straw man.

BH:
No straw man here Bender. You admit that the scenarios are not inspired and everyone of them could very well be wrong. You admit we are under no obligation to obey them or follow them.
What this does prove is that you have no faith in your own scenarios. Why else engage in so much mental masturbation only to say in the end "It's not inspired, it could very well be wrong."

BH from yesterday:
Granted, a "how it could have been" scenario may indeed describe what happened accurately, but there is no way for the apologist to know this for a fact. As far as you know there actually is a contradiction.

BENDER:

The whole point of using a "how it could have been" scenario is to show that what might appear to be a contradiction is not NECESSARILY so. You seem to "grant" this, but then act as though such scenarios are of no use since there is no way of determining if they were actually the case. The point is not determining what actually happened, since that is clearly impossible merely using the given texts - the point is trying to determine if an apparent contradiction MUST be a contradiction. Showing that a POSSIBLE and reasonable explanation exists is to show that an apparent contradiction does NOT need to be a contradiction. Therefore, if such an explanation is shown to exist, then it cannot be the case that a contradiction has been proven to occur.

BH:
I am not interested in what is POSSIBLE. I am interested in what happened absolutely and objectively. You produce scenerios to your hearts content and I will reject everyone of them simply because they are not inspired. Please see the bottom of this page on why I know reject scenarios as possible contradiction solvers.

Take one supposed contradiction and you may have 5 different scenarios trying to resolve the said contradiction. The scenarios may actually contradict each other. If you are willing for there to be contradicting scenarios why not accept that there may actually just be a contradiction in the Biblical text itself?

BH:
It is just an act of a good imagination, nothing more, nothing less. Unless the apologist can provide absolute objective proof that his/her scenario is what actually happened in a given alleged contradiction, the scenario fails.

Bender:
Absolutely wrong. (And, "scenario" is spelled "scenario", not "scenario".) See my preceding explanation of what is involved in determining if an apparent contradiction is proven to be an actual contradiction.


BH:

In other words, it is okay for scenarios (and thanks for the spell check Douglas) to contradict and call them as such but you cannot call a Biblical contradiction a contradiction?

BH:
The apologist actually dares to speak for God when God did not inspire him to and thus the apologist incurs the curse found in the last chapter of Revelation quoted above.

Bender:
Not in the least. I know of no apologist who would claim to be "speaking for God" (in the sense of being infallibly inspired) when presenting a "how it could have been" scenario. And merely presenting such a scenario does not "add or subtract" to God's Word - it merely seeks to understand God's Word, and to explain it for us mere, fallible and limited, humans. If someone was to conjecture that David used a steak-knife to cut off a piece of Saul's garment in the cave (maybe the Bible says what David used - I'm just giving this as a hypothetical example), yet the Bible did not say what David used, merely hypothesizing about what David might have used, in order to explain to the curious how David could have cut off a garment in a cave, would not be to "add" anything to the Bible. If, however, the apologist claimed that this was an infallible fact, and sought to have it included as part of God's Word, then he or she would be in trouble.

BH:
The case of David cutting Saul's clothes is not an example of a scenario trying to explain a contradiction as far as I am aware.
The only way a scenario will help you understand the text is if the said scenario is actually what happened. Otherwise all you have is false belief and false explanations. Please see the bottom of this post for more information.

Bender:
I am honestly amazed that anyone would argue that possible and reasonable explanations which would reconcile two accounts, whether in the Bible or some other non-fiction book, would not be sufficient to show that a contradiction between those accounts had not been proven. Note that those explanations are not claimed to have proven that no contradiction exists - they merely show that no contradiction has been proven. And if no contradiction has been proven, then one cannot validly claim to have found a contradiction, since there is the reasonable possibility (shown by the possible and reasonable explanation which reconciles the accounts)

BH:
As you have said, you have not shown there is not a contradiction either. We are not bound by any of your explanations. In fact, until you provide one that is inspired I will reject every one given.

BH:
For a scenario to PROVE there is no contradiction in the Bible:

1. The person giving the scenario must be inspired of God and authorized to speak for him. If it does not meet this criteria I will reject it.
2. The scenario must be proven to be inspired of God in an absolute objective manner. If it does not meet this criteria I will reject it.
3. The scenario must be the one and only scenario allowed by believers as "truth" with dissenters marked as heretics and false teachers. The reason is because of #1 and #2--the scenario is the revealed word of God to not be argued with.
4. The events being reconciled by the said scenario must be proven to have actually occurred in a proven absolute objective manner. You can’t assume a scenario concerning Judas hanging himself if he did not actually hang himself.


One last question for Mr. Bender: If scenarios are not binding and you admit this, and you admit I can reject all of them, how can you them really say a contradiction is resolved?

The burden of proof is on the believer in the Bible. I will not concern myself with objections otherwise.

Mr. Bender, thank you for your courteous and quick reply to my post. I look forward to speaking to you again on this matter.

Truly yours,

Barry H. Manners

[ November 16, 2002: Message edited by: BH ]

[ November 30, 2002: Message edited by: BH ]</p>

B. H. Manners

]

[ November 16, 2002: Message edited by: BH ]</p>

B. H. Manners

I don't know what I did but I got 3 posts of the one above.

[ November 16, 2002: Message edited by: BH ]</p>

Dargo

"How it could have been" apologists love to make their scenarios complicated. That way their audience is hopefully too confused to question their impecable logic. I guess a lot of Christians assume if they can't understand something writen by a Christian "scholar" then what was said must be profound.

[ November 17, 2002: Message edited by: Dargo ]</p>

B. H. Manners

It is nothing more than manipulation and telling people what they want to hear.