Bob K

Contradictions in Biblical stories prove that the stories were not written nor supervised by gods, unless the gods are incompetent.

Contradictions do in fact exist in the Bible.

Contradictions prove that since gods did not write/supervise the writing of the Bible then men were the authors.

Since men and not gods wrote the Bible (the gods did not inspire or supervise its writing), we are now having to deal with the possibilities of human errors.

With the possibility of human errors, and no credible corroboration of at least a few if not many if not most if not all Biblical stories, we are faced with the likelihood that we will never know what happened in Biblical times.

Of course, the gods, themselves, could clear up all the confusion by showing up, proving they are gods by demonstrating superior knowledge than man and superior capabilities for using their knowledge, and answering our questions.

I am not aware that we have any credible/corroborated reports of the appearances of gods, of their proving themselves to be gods and answering the questions of men.

Why should there be more than one story about specific people/things/events? We only need one.

Multiple stories containing contradictions raise the possibilities that (A) all stories are false, (B) one is true and the others false; logically, they cannot all be true if they contain contradictions.

Since contradictions prove we are not dealing with an holy book, why bother with it?

The fundamental problem for religion is that no one can prove gods exist, therefore, all commentary re: what the gods want from humans is useless.

The fundamental question concerning religion: Do gods exist?

Proof is to be defined as (A) physical evidence consisting of people/things/events comprised of matter/energy perceivable with the perceptual senses of sight/hearing/touch/smell/taste either directly or indirectly through their effects upon people/things/events, requiring proof of the indirect effects, (B) credible eyewitness reports of physical evidence of the gods, corroborated by credible corroborators, and/or (C) logical arguments in which the premises are verifiable/falsifiable/verified by physical evidence and lead to relevant conclusions, niether the premises are present in the conclusions nor the conclusions present in the premises.

No proof, no credibility. No need to consider if or not gods exist and what they may want from humans.

Time to move on to reality.

B. H. Manners

Guys, you did a great job refuting Mr. Bender's and Vanderzyden's false doctrine.

[ November 19, 2002: Message edited by: BH ]</p>

Clutch

BobK,
Well, this is what I've argued against. I mean, contradictions would prove this, but it's obvious that establishing the existence of such contradictions will inevitably be a matter of one man's modus ponens being another man's modus tollens.

Agreed: If there are biblical contradictions, then the bible cannot be the complete and literal word of a god as depicted by Christianity.

Atheist: X is a biblical contradiction; therefore, the bible cannot be the complete and literal word of a god as depicted by Christianity.

Theist: The bible is the complete and literal word of a god as depicted by Christianity; therefore, X is not a biblical contradiction.

And there are always ways of dissolving any apparent contradiction. So the underlying question is never whether there are contradictions, but rather, whether the proffered interpretation is credible.

But here the emphasis on contradictions has no special force, since the bible is chock-a-block with claims that are radically less than credible. Douglas' laughable special pleading about Judas has nothing on the claim that Jesus chemically turned water to wine by wishing it were so.

I think the most effective thing is not to have fundies deconstruct text in avoiding contradictions, but just to get them to say, in public, loudly, things like "Yes, the slaughter of women and children can be moral perfection", and other simply crazy things that they are committed to.

Vesica

Contradictions in Biblical stories prove that the stories were not written nor supervised by gods, unless the gods are incompetent.

I was with you up to the supervise part....Most of these discussions are trying to prove that the Bible is not 'the inerrant word O'God' because we can all play find the error. I did not realize they were also trying to knock the leg out from under the 'divinly inspired' bit too?!

Does that mean when someone working for me composes a report at my request on a subject of my choosing and spells a Statistical term incorrectly, that the report was not written on my behalf because I know Statistics?? I know this is a rather off topic example but it does get at the heart of the matter. So nothing is true/worthwhile because God (or whoever) would a) know when stuff happened and b) would think it important to have that stuff perfect in there?

I only ask because there are X-ians that argue that the Bible deals with spiritual matters and yes, some of the 'facts' are screwed up. One could take the tact that the Bible is the inerrent word O'God but was never meant as anything more than a metaphor and illustrations of life points. It would then be inerrant in that God would have picked the examples he wanted? Just wandering here...Intresting directions I thought.

Family Man

I don't have problems with Christians who recognize that the Bible was written by humans, and that it contains errors and contradictions -- but still believe the gist of it is true. Those types tend to be more tolerant and understanding than of opposing positions than those who insist on a literal and unbending view dependent on it being the unerring word of God.

But I have no problem knocking the legs out of inerrancy arguments of someone like Douglas, who I strongly suspects "knows" that there must be some sort of explanation for the numerous contradictions (even though there isn't). However, I don't do that because I think it disproves Christianity. It doesn't. I do it because I loathe the strain of Christianity where always present their own opinion as God's opinion, based on a wierd perception of Bible as God's Word that only the literalist can really understand.

Ultimately, how Judas died isn't worth much in determining whether Christianity is true. It is invaluable, however, in discrediting a train of thought where certain Christians "know better" than the rest of us.

Jamie_L

What I personally like about biblical contradictions is this:

People who openly accept or explain away contradictions are demonstrating that human judgement is used to construct their religious beliefs.

And if human judgement is required, and human judgement is fallible, and clearly different humans come up with different judgements, then the root of this whole Christianity thing is chaos, and everybody is just making up a religion that suits their sensibilities.

And nobody knows what God wants. So either everyone is screwed, or God's a nice guy, and nobody is screwed.

Or there's no God at all, and everybody is both screwed and not-screwed, depending on your point of view.

Jamie

Baidarka

At the risk of turning off some of you with a rant.
I disagree with the idea that we have had enough of Biblical contradictions. The enemy is out there in the form of a mindless horde. The pointing out of contradictions is just one of the weapons of reason. If some scientist claimed to have discovered cold fusion would we fail to look for inconsistencies in his methods? Why should we disrespect our illogical friends by holding them to a lower standard of truth then we would the cold fusion scientist?

The good fight must be fought!
Science, logic and reason must prevail.
The fog created by the forces of unreason must be dispelled in order that we might live in the real world.
We must save the muddle headed, witch craft believing, demon haunted, bible thumpers from the misguided silliness that they threaten to destroy our civilization with.
Fundamentalists of all types are a danger to the future of the human race. They are like drunk drivers loosed blindly on our world, easily controlled by the unscrupulous and the insane.
Belief in nonsense may seem harmless but as we begin the 21st century we are threatened from the outside by Fundamentalist Muslims and from the inside by hordes of mindless Fundamentalist Christians and let's not forget the Fundamentalist Jews (believers in the new messiah Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson who are probably more of a danger to themselves then anyone else).
If pointing out Biblical Contradictions can shed a light on the false doctrine of biblical inerrancy then I say lets list the contradictions. Lets hold their feet to the fire until they start to think.

Let's shine a light on Biblical Contradictions, impossibilities, hypocrisy, , misogyny, and atrocities.

Vesica

The 'out there' part was my point...They don't seem to be in here. In here I've found close-minded X-ians who aren't going to be swayed by anything, open minded X-ians that pick and chose what and when to argue and agnostics and athiests who are on the side of logic (sometimes) already. I protest the contradiction threads when they turn into quests to make someone else look stupid so the original poster will look smarter...I don't think those kinds of threads are helpful to anyone or the tone of this BB.

Apikorus

The fundamentalist hermeneutic is firmly based on the presumed inerrancy of the biblical text. When faced with inescapable contradictions due to scribal error, fundamentalists will often concede that the biblical text as we have it today does contain such errors, but that (i) the "originals" were perfect and inerrant, and (ii) the errors that do exist are of a trivial nature, and there are no errors in "essential" teachings on issues such as salvation. More subtle internal contradictions, due to multiple authorship, redaction, etc. are even easier for the fundamentalist to deflect.

Arguing over the existence of biblical "errors" is a medieval enterprise. The biblically credulous have had centuries to identify and explain away every possible problem. Indeed, there are usually several possible solutions to each putative problem. Whether or not these solutions are absurd is of no consequence. The only thing that matters is that a solution exists. I agree completely with Clutch here.

One can also view the argument as a sort of Chinese finger puzzle. Rather than challenge one's opponent, one can simply concede the extreme exegetical leaps which are necessary to confirm the inerrancy of the biblical text, and indeed apply the same hermeneutic to "prove" that the Qur'an, or the Bundahisn, or the Enuma Elish, or that "Bonfire of the Vanities" is divine and perfect. Of course, in the end, this won't change any fundamentalist minds, but it often proves to be amusingly diverting.

Another approach is to use the same allusive approach as the fundamentalists to "prove" from the Bible that Jesus was evil and punished by Yahweh for his grievous sins. See <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000053" target="_blank">Turning the Christian hermeneutic on its head</a>

[ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: Apikorus ]</p>

Butters

Frikiin' cool!