BibleForums Christian Message Board
Other Categories => Controversial Issues => Non Christian Perspective => Topic started by: DavidGYoung on March 17, 2023, 08:03:58 AM
-
I throw down the gauntlet to anyone who maintains there are no contradictions in the Bible.
Please write two sentences in the English language which, in your opinion, blatantly contradict each other.
-
I throw down the gauntlet to anyone who maintains there are no contradictions in the Bible.
Please write two sentences in the English language which, in your opinion, blatantly contradict each other.
Low effort gets low effort I guess.
Jesse is married to Jane. Jane is not married to Jesse.
-
Using pretty much the same lines of argument that Biblical apologists employ, I can now show they are not contradictory.
When the author of the second sentence uses the phrase 'not married to', it's a figure of speech such as not being married to an idea. However, in the first sentence the word 'married' is used in its literal sense. Jesse is the husband of Jane, but Jane is not all that keen on her husband.
-
Using pretty much the same lines of argument that Biblical apologists employ, I can now show they are not contradictory.
When the author of the second sentence uses the phrase 'not married to', it's a figure of speech such as not being married to an idea. However, in the first sentence the word 'married' is used in its literal sense. Jesse is the husband of Jane, but Jane is not all that keen on her husband.
And being the unimpressed sceptic, I'd point out the contemporaneous nature of the two utterances, their concrete nature, the literal/factualness of what was said (given the genre), and so on.
-
You might be missing the point though.
The starting position, if I copy the Christian apologists, is that there is no contradiction in front of me, no matter what it is that I am looking at. Once I take this as indisputable, all I need to do is create whatever back story harmonises them. If any additional information is also available which challenges my harmonisation, I merely have to treat it as subordinate to the unalterable idea of no contradictions.
The fact that the original author is no longer able to come back with an objection, as the writers of the various parts of the Bible are long deceased, also helps.
-
You might be missing the point though.
The starting position, if I copy the Christian apologists, is that there is no contradiction in front of me, no matter what it is that I am looking at. Once I take this as indisputable, all I need to do is create whatever back story harmonises them. If any additional information is also available which challenges my harmonisation, I merely have to treat it as subordinate to the unalterable idea of no contradictions.
The fact that the original author is no longer able to come back with an objection, as the writers of the various parts of the Bible are long deceased, also helps.
Yes, I got that.
-
I throw down the gauntlet to anyone who maintains there are no contradictions in the Bible.
Instead of playing this game, why don't you show us some of these so called "biblical contradictions"?
-
I throw down the gauntlet to anyone who maintains there are no contradictions in the Bible.
Instead of playing this game, why don't you show us some of these so called "biblical contradictions"?
Be a sport, Fenris; he's trying to demonstrate that we wouldn't accept in any other area of life the kind of reasoning some apologists apparently employ. Well, along with the faults with such reasoning, and so on and so forth, until at some point, after the point has been boringly beleaguered, we get on with the main stuff.
Because apparently, we're just a bit daft and need the point spelled out.
-
Would you agree then that the assertion "There are no contradictions in the Bible" can only be defended in the same way that "There is no such thing as a contradiction" can be?
-
Would you agree then that the assertion "There are no contradictions in the Bible" can only be defended in the same way that "There is no such thing as a contradiction" can be?
As I was saying... No, that would clearly be absurd. Did you plan on getting to a concrete example of the irrefutable contradiction before we all die of old age?
-
I could make a variation to the challenge.
Can anyone write a sentence which, if it were in the Bible, would mean that there was now a contradiction in the Bible?
-
I could make a variation to the challenge.
Can anyone write a sentence which, if it were in the Bible, would mean that there was now a contradiction in the Bible?
Mein Gott, das Alter wird uns umbringen...
-
Jest prosta pytania. Czy jest możliwe, aby dać przykład czy nie?
-
Jest prosta pytania. Czy jest możliwe, aby dać przykład czy nie?
Simple to the point of patronising, and in both instances.
I don't feel like being bored to death, so drop the assumptions concerning how any of us here would approach biblical inerrancy and get into the meat of your challenge. If this is all the challenge is I'm going to close it for being less than well thought out.
"Can anyone write a negation?" No I suppose such things are beyond us. Get on with it.
-
I believe we understand what we think he said, but I'm not sure we realize what we read is not what he meant. :o
-
The overarching issue is that he's shown up with a challenge, but in challenging us, he's assumed that we're all committed to a particular view of (1) biblical inerrancy or (2) common apologetics strategies. Or at least, he's making that assumption about those that have participated.
We know the linguistic tricks less-than-intellectually-honest apologists employ to resolve this-or-that claimed contradiction. Hence, "write a contradictory sentence", "now write one again", "the only way to say there are no contradictions is to say there is no such thing as a contradiction", and so on.
It's not a great approach insofar as the slog it's been. I want to know which contradiction he will choose as demonstrative of the 'principles' he's been attempting to outline. The contradiction that we can't linguistically game our way out of. The preamble in this instance doesn't fit the audience.
-
If you read the first sentence of my original post, you will see the first sentence of your previous post is false.
-
If you read the first sentence of my original post, you will see the first sentence of your previous post is false.
Finally something interesting. Do tell.
-
The thread is aimed at people who hold a particular position on the Bible. I made no claims that everyone in this forum holds that particular position.
Similarly, if I had levelled a challenge at anyone opposed to the construction of the Żarnowiec nuclear power station, I would not be implying that everyone here was opposed to it.
-
The thread is aimed at people who hold a particular position on the Bible. I made no claims that everyone in this forum holds that particular position.
Similarly, if I had levelled a challenge at anyone opposed to the construction of the Żarnowiec nuclear power station, I would not be implying that everyone here was opposed to it.
I thought you'd like that. Got anything else in light of the second sentence? Role reversal is the most interesting part of your challenge.
-
It certainly seems that Christians in the twenty-first century behave the same way as Christians in the mid-nineties did.
-
It certainly seems that Christians in the twenty-first century behave the same way as Christians in the mid-nineties did.
In an earlier reply, you demonstrated the unsatisfactory nature of one of the strategies employed by Christian apologists when defending against claims of biblical contradiction. You played with the meaning of the phrase 'not married to': in one case, it's literal and in another, figurative, and ever so conveniently when a contradiction is involved. You then proceeded to ask if we agreed with the assertion that '"[t]here are no contradictions in the Bible" can only be defended in the same way that "There is no such thing as a contradiction" can be?'
But it seems that you aren't immune to making similar errors. In this instance, employing another strategy used by bad apologists: focusing on a single sentence (or, in their case, verse) and ignoring the broader context. Except this time, you weren't trying to make that point. Or maybe you were, and we're playing 5d chess with each other. That would be very interesting. The sentence was false on its own, but at the cost of context. This speaks to your earlier example, by the way.
Becoming derisive isn't the answer, though. You have a challenge, and that doesn't mean we must tip-toe through it. You've come here with particular ideas in mind, and your challenge doesn't fit the audience in this case. Do you suppose you'll get somewhere if I write, "In the beginning, God didn't create the heavens and the earth", "the earth was with form", or any other number of things that would introduce contradictions in the bible? Perhaps I'll agree again that bad apologetics is bad apologetics. Are you going get me to agree that something is bad in one instance, and point out how it's used to resolve a contradiction in another, where I'll then have to back peddle?
You "thr[ew] down the gauntlet". Bold words. You then asked a question a child could answer. You've set the tone. What's it going to be? Are you going to keep on with your challenge or complain that you got the response you primed?
-
Perhaps the real issue is that when we become enamoured with our particular little intellectual and academic pride points, we cease being like Jesus and we start being like Satan.
The real crux of the matter is not what tactics or rhetorical arguments are promulgated by various apologists or academics or skeptics, but is instead a matter of avoiding the distractions and getting back to the issue, which is "what will you do with Jesus, who is called the Christ?"
All of the rest is whining because you played the flute for us and we did not dance, you sang a dirge and we didn't not mourn.
-
Here is the most blatant contradiction in the entire New Testament.
The genealogies of Matthew and Luke cannot both be true.
I put it to you that any of the five, or more if anyone has invented another in recent years, ways of harmonising them is as farcical as my 'not married to' example. An intelligent approach to the Bible has to recognise that at least one of the genealogies is false, even if it does not acknowledge the possibility that they are both false.
-
I'm reminded of a saying by a rabbi (I can't remember who, sorry, but he lived in the last couple of hundred years) "For the believer there are no questions, and for the non believer there are no answers".
-
Perhaps the real issue is that when we become enamoured with our particular little intellectual and academic pride points, we cease being like Jesus and we start being like Satan.
The real crux of the matter is not what tactics or rhetorical arguments are promulgated by various apologists or academics or skeptics, but is instead a matter of avoiding the distractions and getting back to the issue, which is "what will you do with Jesus, who is called the Christ?"
All of the rest is whining because you played the flute for us and we did not dance, you sang a dirge and we didn't not mourn.
Yeah, I did run with it, didn't I? Sigh. Well, that's my bad, DavidG.
Unfortunately, I anticipated exactly where this was going. Since the 'intelligent approach' has been offered, that pretty much kills the conversation unless we want to start arguing about intelligent approaches.
-
Amazing.
Are you an bona fide expert on Jewish historical records?
My genealogy:
And McClellan begat Franklin,
And Franklin begat Solomon,
And Solomon begat Allen,
And Allen begat Allen,
and Allen begat Rabbiknife, who fired blanks and begat no sons or daughters.
Also,
And Ruell begat James Robert,
and James Robert begat Thomas
and Thomas begat Peggy, the mother of Rabbiknife, who fired blanks and begat no sons or daughters.
Even a cursory examination of the text indicates that there are at least two genealogical lines being discussed, one through Joseph, for the purposes of legal lineage, and one through Mary, for the purpose of biological lineage.
Clearly you are trolling and not entertaining a serious discussion if you think that is a "blatant contradiction"
-
Is is as clear as crystal that both genealogies describe descent through Joseph.
You have to turn what it says into something it does not say in order to make either one the genealogy of Mary.
There is only one reason why anyone would think that one of them was not the line of Joseph, and that is the presence of another genealogy.
If the gospel of Matthew existed but not that of Luke, or vice-versa, no person in the history of Biblical exegesis would ever suggest they were reading anything other than a list of Joseph's ancestors.
-
Biblical interpretation requires more than a flat literal reading of the text. You are assuming that genealogy is only from father to son, when the Torah gives several exceptions.
In the absence of historical context and the ways in which the Jewish people used genealogy as something other than ancestors.com, a flat reading means nothing.
Your pseudo-intellectualism, i.e., a solution in search of a problem, is not compelling.
-
Is is as clear as crystal that both genealogies describe descent through Joseph.
It's often suggested that the difference in Joseph's father (Matthew 1:16, Luke 3:23) comes down to how the lineage is traced. Jacob in Matthew's case, who is tracing through Joseph's family line. Heli in Luke's case, who is tracing through Mary's family line. 'Crystal clear' is engaging in the same poor behaviours noted previously. Not only with respect to reasoning but implication.
I don't know that I'd agree with the above necessarily, but there's a vast difference between 'unresolvable contradiction' and answers you simply don't find compelling, but that are nevertheless valid in their own right -- though you may still yet reject them.
There is only one reason why anyone would think that one of them was not the line of Joseph, and that is the presence of another genealogy.
if the gospel of Matthew existed but not that of Luke, or vice-versa, no person in the history of Biblical exegesis would ever suggest they were reading anything other than a list of Joseph's ancestors.
That seems unlikely given the broader historical 'clues' in the genealogy.
-
Putting forward something which you reckon might work if it's true doesn't mean the text actually says it.
If you need the back story in order to get the meaning from the text, I can do that with any other part of the Bible to make it say anything I want.
-
Here is the most blatant contradiction in the entire New Testament.
Exciting, I can't wait.........
The genealogies of Matthew and Luke cannot both be true.
Peanuts.
I am so disappointed....
Sarcasm aside, we don't have the original manuscripts, we do have copies from copies. Surely typos and small errors slipped in, but NOT in the MAIN message the Scriptures are telling us.
And that's not peanuts.
-
Putting forward something which you reckon might work if it's true doesn't mean the text actually says it.
If you need the back story in order to get the meaning from the text, I can do that with any other part of the Bible to make it say anything I want.
No, you can't, not without descending into eisegesis or just flat out ignoring the text. You would have to ignore context, audience, the author's assumed/proposed intention in writing (if not given to us), and so on. It's to engage in the reverse of the farcical 'not married to' example. So yes, you need the 'back story', also known as context.
As was once sung
-
I can explain the genealogies without having to pour Tipp-ex on the New Testament and rewrite parts of it with a biro.
You can't.
-
I can explain the genealogies without having to pour Tipp-ex on the New Testament and rewrite parts of it with a biro.
You can't.
Telling me you can explain is boring. Giving the explanation is interesting. So, as the person who saw this coming from the first reply, please do share your explanation.
-
It's often suggested that the difference in Joseph's father (Matthew 1:16, Luke 3:23) comes down to how the lineage is traced.
The bigger issue for me is that Jesus can't be a descendant of king David because his father isn't Joseph. Mary's ancestry isn't relevant because that's not how tribal affiliation is traced in Judaism.
-
It's often suggested that the difference in Joseph's father (Matthew 1:16, Luke 3:23) comes down to how the lineage is traced.
The bigger issue for me is that Jesus can't be a descendant of king David because his father isn't Joseph. Mary's ancestry isn't relevant because that's not how tribal affiliation is traced in Judaism.
The even bigger issue for me is that I don't see how it matters if the two accounts are contradictory if the intent was effectively rhetorical vs. a literal factual genealogical attempt.
-
The even bigger issue for me is that I don't see how it matters if the two accounts are contradictory if the intent was effectively rhetorical vs. a literal factual genealogical attempt.
I mean, the author is trying to prove a point.
-
Does levarite marriage or adoption impact the historic Jewish use of genealogy,
For instance, could Obed be legitimately considered a son of Boaz and also a son of Mahon since Obed would inherit from both?
Same question for adoptions…
Just thinking out loud…
-
Does levarite marriage
Levirate marriage involves a close male relative carrying on the family through biological children.
or adoption impact the historic Jewish use of genealogy,
There is no legality to adoption under Jewish law. It's a big mitzvah, but the adopted children do not assume the tribal affiliation of the adopted father.
Just thinking out loud…
Who's being legalistic now? :o
-
The even bigger issue for me is that I don't see how it matters if the two accounts are contradictory if the intent was effectively rhetorical vs. a literal factual genealogical attempt.
I mean, the author is trying to prove a point.
Yeah but Shaka, when the walls fell?
-
Yeah but Shaka, when the walls fell?
Depends on the target audience I think. A Greek listener might be more interested in prose and poetry. A Jewish listener wants the facts.
-
The even bigger issue for me is that I don't see how it matters if the two accounts are contradictory if the intent was effectively rhetorical vs. a literal factual genealogical attempt.
I mean, the author is trying to prove a point.
Yeah but Shaka, when the walls fell?
RabbiKnife, his eyes wet and his wings unfurled.
-
Yeah but Shaka, when the walls fell?
Depends on the target audience I think. A Greek listener might be more interested in prose and poetry. A Jewish listener wants the facts.
What's your view on the genealogies? (Or if you gave it already just say so, I'm too lazy to open a new tab.)
-
What's your view on the genealogies? (Or if you gave it already just say so, I'm too lazy to open a new tab.)
Irrelevant because Joseph isn't Jesus's father and Mary can't provide tribal affiliation or royal lineage.
A Jewish reader would have dismissed it out of hand.
Greek readers were more familiar with the idea of gods impregnating mortal women (Achilles, for example) and it would have been a strong point for them I suppose.
-
Never cared a lot.
I don't have any problem with apparent contradictions. I don't think they are intended to hit every branch in the family line, but that the named ancestors where chosen to demonstrate continuity back as far as the author wanted them to go.
I believe one is for establishing the idea that Jesus is tied all the way back to creation, and the other for establishing that Jesus is tied all the way back to Abraham through David.
I think many folks struggling with these are folks that generally have a need for solutions in search of problems.
-
I think many folks struggling with these are folks that generally have a need for solutions in search of problems.
Uh, is this directed at me?
-
If you chose this:
"Luke shows the line of Mary."
then you must reject:
"Matthew shows the line of Mary and her father was called Jacob."
and reject:
"Matthew shows the line of Mary and her father was called Joseph, the same name as her husband."
and reject:
"It was about Levirate marriage."
and reject:
"Joseph had a stepfather, but not in the Levirate manner."
If you choose one of these, none of which is stated in either gospel, why do you reject the other four?
-
I think many folks struggling with these are folks that generally have a need for solutions in search of problems.
Uh, is this directed at me?
Just the OP, I think? Maybe? I don't know who here actually cares if the genealogies are consonant or concretely historically accurate with each other beyond the OPs challenge.
-
I think many folks struggling with these are folks that generally have a need for solutions in search of problems.
Uh, is this directed at me?
No
You ain’t be a strugglin’’
-
No
You ain’t be a strugglin’’
Do you know how much cleaning I have to do before Passover?! ;D
-
If you choose one of these, none of which is stated in either gospel, why do you reject the other four?
If the NT is inerrant, then a problem with the text is based on a lack of understanding of the text and not an issue of the text itself.
-
That only works if you assume it is inerrant.
If you wish to demonstrate that it is inerrant, you need to show it can be when it contradicts.
If I start with any immovable position, e.g. the Bible consistently teaches that Islam is the one true faith, I too can maintain that anything which appears to contradict this is a misunderstanding of the text.
The end result of either approach is that nothing in the Bible means anything.
-
That only works if you assume it is inerrant.
As you might point out to others -- that's the point of the conditional "if". Assuming it's inerrant...
Of course, demonstrating such is the real trick, as you note, without descending into a kind of textual nihilism.
-
That only works if you assume it is inerrant.
If you wish to demonstrate that it is inerrant, you need to show it can be when it contradicts.
If I start with any immovable position, e.g. the Bible consistently teaches that Islam is the one true faith, I too can maintain that anything which appears to contradict this is a misunderstanding of the text.
The end result of either approach is that nothing in the Bible means anything.
Do you have a point you are trying to make, or are you just here to instruct us with your superior intellect and gnostic superknowledge?
I don't watch porn, and I don't entertain folks that don't get to saying what they mean while hiding behind implied superiority. At least with porn, I guess, I would understand the point.
If you have something to say, spit it out.
Otherwise, I'll have to put you in the "all hat, no cattle" silo.
This is not edifying in any manner, so far, merely vain repetition and pointless blather.
-
That only works if you assume it is inerrant.
That's why I said "if".
I don't consider it to be inerrant obviously. On the other hand, I understand what Christians who consider it inerrant do believe and therefore why your line of thinking is not going to provide a fruitful discussion with them.
If you wish to demonstrate that it is inerrant, you need to show it can be when it contradicts.
Which they have done to their own satisfaction even if not to yours.
The end result of either approach is that nothing in the Bible means anything.
To you, perhaps.
Even if I did not believe in God I would still think that the bible has done more to change human culture than any other work.
-
The 'own satisfaction' point really doesn't wash.
Would you agree that 'The Bible contains no contradictions' can only be a position of faith?
By contrast, 'There are events within the gospel of Mark which are historically accurate' is something which can be soundly demonstrated rationally, along with 'Various characters in the Tanakh were real people' and 'The Septuagint predates the New Testament'.
-
Bored
-
Would you agree that 'The Bible contains no contradictions' can only be a position of faith?
No, the same could be said of any work, real or fictitious.
To wit, "Would you agree that 'Moby Dick contains no contradictions' can only be a position of faith?"
Substitute any work and it reads the same.