Freethought & Rationalism Archive

leonarde · 10-13-2002, 08:33 AM

Wait just a moment: "semantics" is the scientific
study of word meanings. If we are trying
to figure out what a man (allegedly) meant
by an utterance of some 2000 years ago, in a language which is, except in a village or two of
Syria, extinct, and in a cultural and religious
milieu which are very foreign from our own,
we had better be interested in semantics,
and much much more than that.
We have citizens of the US which for the past 30
years have been called "black". Before that they
were most commonly called "Negroes", a Latinate
word derived from the word for "black". Yet how
"black" is Mohammed Ali (we are talking skin tone
here, not culture)???? WE then commonly use the
word "black" to designate some very light-colored
persons (think for example of Adam Clayton Powell
whose skin was lighter than many swarthy Sicilians). So the criticism---the ironclad logic----tells us that the way that we speak of such
things is "illogical". So be it.
Baidarka wants to be an absolutist about statement
X, and ----surprise!----statement X turns up a
"contradiction". For absolutists like him this is
decisive. But others of us take statements by Christ (and others in the Scriptures) in the overall context of the record....

Cheers!

Baidarka · 10-13-2002, 08:47 AM

Leonarde
OK Here is the text in question. Please explain its’ meaning for us.
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.

leonarde · 10-13-2002, 09:09 AM

As I mentioned before "the Law and the Prophets"
was a shorthand for what we call "the Old Testament" (or at least the core thereof). He was saying that they (as written documents expressing, in different ways, God's historical interaction with Man)would endure. We 21st Century types know that they indeed have (so
far) endured.
Going back to "Law violations" we see in the Gospels Christ alluding to an incident (one reported in the Old Testament)in which David consumes, and gives to his famished men to consume, consecrated bread. Christ reports this in such a way that his listeners understand that
David chose correctly: sometimes the letter
of the Law must be weighed against other considerations. Or as Christ said in another but
not wholly unanalogous context: the Sabbath was made for Man and not Man for the Sabbath.

Cheers!

Ion · 10-13-2002, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:

...
If we are trying
to figure out what a man (allegedly) meant
by an utterance of some 2000 years ago, in a language which is, except in a village or two of
Syria, extinct, and in a cultural and religious
milieu which are very foreign from our own,
we had better be interested in semantics,
and much much more than that.
...
Cheers!

This thread started on Biblical contradictions of the style: A, -A.

However, there are Biblical contradictions galore dealing with statements that don't fit basic science and history.
Therefore these statements disqualify the Bible as being true.
Such a statement, found in Matt 16:28 for example, doesn't have any excuse of mistranslation, but is in naive violation of history as it unfolded afterwards:
"Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.".
Everybody from two thousands years ago died, yet the "...Son of Man coming in His kingdom." didn't happen.

It is one phoney prophecy in the Bible, a contradiction with history.
There are plenty of others.

leonarde · 10-13-2002, 09:40 AM

I understand that Jesus 'came into his kingdom'
on Easter Sunday. He spent 40 days letting others
know about it.
Cheers!

Ion · 10-13-2002, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:
I understand that Jesus 'came into his kingdom'
on Easter Sunday. He spent 40 days letting others
know about it.
Cheers!

40 days, that's all about "...His kingdom."?
"...His kingdom." Eastern Sunday, it's no big deal then.

Besides, any historical proof for these 40 days?
Nope.

Matt 24:30 writes:
"...then will appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory;".

Easter Sunday or not, mistranslation or not, it seems to me that the history hasn't seen that "...all the tribes of the earth..." were mourning (the Egyptians 2,000 years ago didn't have a clue about it, for example), and "...the Son of Man coming...".

These are not recorded as historical events.

I mean, this 'prophecy' hasn't become a recorded historical event, like say the battle between Julius Caesar and Vercingetorix.
Outside of the Bible, nobody in the world and in history, is claiming "...the Son of Man coming...", Eastern Sunday and mistranslations.

There it is, a Biblical contradiction with historical facts established by humanity.

Grumpy · 10-13-2002, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ion:
This thread started on Biblical contradictions of the style: A, -A.
However, there are Biblical contradictions galore dealing with statements that don't fit basic science and history.

When dealing with hardcore literalists, I don't bother with Biblical inaccuracies on history or science. The reason is simple: if it disagrees with the Bible, it's wrong.

Internal contradictions are much slicker, since it forces the Bible to argue against itself. But, as we've seen, there are different types of internal contradictions. Some can be explained by sloppy storytelling. Others require more nuanced rationalizations (like the bad deeds of ostensibly sinless characters). That leaves only a very few spots where the text paints itself into a narrative corner.

leonarde · 10-13-2002, 06:32 PM

Posted by Grumpy:

Quote:

When dealing with hardcore literalists, [...]

The above, even----no especially---when taken with
the rest of his/her post indicates that he/she still doesn't get it. So briefly:

1)Baidarka and Ion are the Biblical literalists here: they tend to take each phrase, sentence, exchange in a word for word, phrase for phrase, exhange for exchange manner, giving little notice of the context. Their literalism is the source of their perception that the NT is just a collection of contradictions. One could do the
same to virtually any text: the US Constitution,
if taken on the same basis, would seem no more than a pack of lies.

2)I, on the other hand, have urged weighing any
given saying, verse, etc. against the overall record of the Gospel(s). In other words, I'm the
non-literalist (though to be sure there are things
that I do take literally: in the NT and in
the Constitution).

Cheers!

[ October 13, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]

Ion · 10-13-2002, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Grumpy:

...
That leaves only a very few spots where the text paints itself into a narrative corner.

Alright, then.

If Biblical contradictions with human knowledge from history and science, are too obvious, then Biblical contradictions within the Bible, are detectable too:

1. for example, is 'God' good to all, or good to a few?

Psalm 145:9 reads
"The Lord is good to all."

Jeremiah 13:14 reads
"..."And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together" says the Lord. "I will not pitty nor spare nor have mercy, but will destry them."..."

Psalm 145:9 and Jeremiah 13:14 are in direct contradiction, no matter the context, mistranslation or other excuses.

2. for example, is 'God' of war or of peace?

Exodus 15:3 reads
"The Lord is a man of war."

Romans 15:33 reads
"Now the God of peace be with you all."

Exodus 15:3 "...of war.", and Romans 15:33 "...of peace...", are in direct contradiction, no matter the context, mistranslation or other excuses.

There are other such absurdities.

Ion · 10-13-2002, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:

...
1)Baidarka and Ion are the Biblical literalists here: they tend to take each phrase, sentence, exchange in a word for word, phrase for phrase, exhange for exchange manner, giving little notice of the context. Their literalism is the source of their perception that the NT is just a collection of contradictions. One could do the
same to virtually any text:
...
Cheers!

[ October 13, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]

Not at all:
try to find contradictions in a book of mathematics with solved problems; or in a book of history that claims established facts.

Good luck.

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

10-13-2002, 08:33 AM	#31
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Wait just a moment: "semantics" is the scientific study of word meanings. If we are trying to figure out what a man (allegedly) meant by an utterance of some 2000 years ago, in a language which is, except in a village or two of Syria, extinct, and in a cultural and religious milieu which are very foreign from our own, we had better be interested in semantics, and much much more than that. We have citizens of the US which for the past 30 years have been called "black". Before that they were most commonly called "Negroes", a Latinate word derived from the word for "black". Yet how "black" is Mohammed Ali (we are talking skin tone here, not culture)???? WE then commonly use the word "black" to designate some very light-colored persons (think for example of Adam Clayton Powell whose skin was lighter than many swarthy Sicilians). So the criticism---the ironclad logic----tells us that the way that we speak of such things is "illogical". So be it. Baidarka wants to be an absolutist about statement X, and ----surprise!----statement X turns up a "contradiction". For absolutists like him this is decisive. But others of us take statements by Christ (and others in the Scriptures) in the overall context of the record.... Cheers!

10-13-2002, 08:47 AM	#32
Baidarka Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 590	Leonarde OK Here is the text in question. Please explain its’ meaning for us. 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.

10-13-2002, 09:09 AM	#33
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	As I mentioned before "the Law and the Prophets" was a shorthand for what we call "the Old Testament" (or at least the core thereof). He was saying that they (as written documents expressing, in different ways, God's historical interaction with Man)would endure. We 21st Century types know that they indeed have (so far) endured. Going back to "Law violations" we see in the Gospels Christ alluding to an incident (one reported in the Old Testament)in which David consumes, and gives to his famished men to consume, consecrated bread. Christ reports this in such a way that his listeners understand that David chose correctly: sometimes the letter of the Law must be weighed against other considerations. Or as Christ said in another but not wholly unanalogous context: the Sabbath was made for Man and not Man for the Sabbath. Cheers!

10-13-2002, 09:40 AM	#35
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	I understand that Jesus 'came into his kingdom' on Easter Sunday. He spent 40 days letting others know about it. Cheers!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.