The contradiction challenge

[Athanasius]

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.

[DavidGYoung]

If you read the first sentence of my original post, you will see the first sentence of your previous post is false.

[Athanasius]

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.

[DavidGYoung]

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.

[Athanasius]

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.

[DavidGYoung]

It certainly seems that Christians in the twenty-first century behave the same way as Christians in the mid-nineties did.

[Athanasius]

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?

[RabbiKnife]

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.   

[DavidGYoung]

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.

[Fenris]

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".

[Athanasius]

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.

[RabbiKnife]

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"

[DavidGYoung]

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.

[RabbiKnife]

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.

[Athanasius]

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.