Moderator: Moderators
When dismissing contradictions in the Bible, are there any apologetic arguments that are considered out of bounds or beyond the pale?PinSeeker wrote:There are absolutely no contradictions in the Bible. Nowhere does God ever contradict Himself.
Sometimes things are predictable because they follow the dictates of logic or proven reality. If you ask someone what will happen if an apple is thrown in the air the "all-too-predictable" responses will likely be that it will come back down. You can of course keep asking in the hope that someone will tell you that it will be eaten by a passing cloud of migrant bats but you may have to be asking the same question for some time.Mithrae wrote:But the point holds true even in thise case that Goose's fixation on A and ~A is an arbitrary/meaningless goalpost when the all-too-predictable response that "not A is using A in a different snse" lingers always on the horizon.
I can sympathize with Mithrae and believes his point should be rationally addressed rather than to advise him on stop bringing it up.JehovahsWitness wrote:If you find the whole thing "arbitrary/meaningless" I can only advise you stop bringing it up.Mithrae wrote:But the point holds true even in thise case that Goose's fixation on A and ~A is an arbitrary/meaningless goalpost when the all-too-predictable response that "not A is using A in a different snse" lingers always on the horizon.
My point exactly, things are not black and white, people do not express themselves like lawyers, there is nearly always an alternative way of understanding a passage especially in a book given to poerty, symbolism and bursts of hyperbole. If one is looking for biblical contradictions you will probably find them, if one is looking for explanations for those "contradictions" those are usually just an internet click away as well.otseng wrote: As far as addressing contradictions in the Bible, it takes a lot to unpack this. In a society that seeks a simple black and white answer to things, there is not a simple answer to this issue.
Mithrae wrote:But the point holds true even in thise case that Goose's fixation on A and ~A ....
Anyway the bottom line is people have their work cut out for them pinning anything in scripture down as being a true contradiction, but it's a bit of a hobbie of mine to watch them try. (Of course I don't let my hobbie interfere with any of my posts on this forum where I devote myself to debates).FIXATION
: the act, process, or result of fixing, fixating, or becoming fixated: such as
a: a persistent concentration of libidinal energies upon objects characteristic of psychosexual stages of development preceding the genital stage
b: stereotyped behavior (as in response to frustration)
c: an obsessive or unhealthy preoccupation or attachment
This implies that you believe there are some, just not many, real contradictions and of those the majority but not all are the result of copying errors or the like. Could you provide a few examples of those so we can see what a "real contradiction" in the bible looks like? (Or any of the non-copyist errors in the bible for that matter?)JehovahsWitness wrote: You may insist as much as you like but the language of the bible is simply not explicit enough to establish many real contradictions (and any apparent contradictions are more often than not the result of copies errors and most inconsequential).
Which brings us back to the point raised in the OP - which I don't think any Christian has addressed, certainly not you or BJS when I brought it up with each of you earlier in the discussion - that the available range of ad hoc rationalizations and dubious speculations which biblicists bring to bear in discussion of this topic makes it virtually meaningless to claim that anything else in the bible is actually true (or that anything else ever written is false). The author of Matthew makes a false claim in literal content - that the number of generations from David to Jeconiah was 14 - but no, he was just talking about some particular generations he was interested in and that's okay because he was making a "theological point." Consequently when Matthew claims in an apparently literal story that there were guards at Jesus' tomb, we must accept as plausible the view that the claim of guards is literally false but there to serve as some kind of theological point; indeed perhaps the resurrection itself is literally false (there's certainly plenty of reason to question its historicity!) but, like Matthew's 14 generations from David to Jeconiah, has a theological purpose.JehovahsWitness wrote: My point exactly, things are not black and white, people do not express themselves like lawyers, there is nearly always an alternative way of understanding a passage especially in a book given to poerty, symbolism and bursts of hyperbole. If one is looking for biblical contradictions you will probably find them, if one is looking for explanations for those "contradictions" those are usually just an internet click away as well.
I can partly sympathize with this. As I've argued, I don't claim to be a Biblical inerrantist. Though some things in the Bible I accept literally, I also acknowledge there exist errors in the Bible. However, I do accept the Bible as authoritative and trustworthy.Difflugia wrote: While there are a number of voices here, that's not what I'm saying. I am, though, denying the corresponding Christian extreme that claims that the entire Bible can (and indeed must) be accepted as trustworthy in all of its details and that it has a single, unified theology.
What I would take issue with is anyone claiming their theology is the absolute truth and any other theology is categorically false. I believe everything should be up to analysis and critique. Nobody knows absolute everything and everyone should acknowledge perhaps they could be in error. What we should all be open to however is rational arguments and evidence.I think what is being rejected out of hand is a number of resolutions that many Christians find theologically distasteful (are there conflicting theologies of Jesus' divinity within the New Testament?).
I'm a six day creationist, but I'm not dogmatic about it. As a matter of fact, if a Christian wants to believe in evolution, I'm not going to label him a heretic. What we should both be willing to do is be willing to defend our positions through Biblical and non-Biblical evidence.It's interesting to me, in fact, that creationists seem to work both ends of the spectrum simultaneously.
This is a very good point about how we work with a contradiction. With this kind of reasoning Evolution ought to be thrown out because there are two contradictory models for the rate at which the evolutionary process unfolds – Phyletic Gradualism and Punctuated Equilibrium (PE). This is explained by saying both models do occur but occur at different times in different contexts. Evolutionary event A is said to be an example of gradualism whereas evolutionary event B is said to be one of PE. Even though both gradualism and PE can offer a plausible interpretation of both events A and B. Which of course can’t logically be the case since they are contradictory models.otseng wrote:Here's one response to the whole idea of contradictions...
What is light? Is it a particle or a wave? Light has properties of both, but it appears to be a contradiction to say light is both a particle and a wave. Yet, we have to accept it is both, even though it is an apparent contradiction. We do not throw out light all together since we cannot resolve the contradiction. Likewise, we see apparent contradictions in the Bible (is Jesus God or man?) and we believe it's impossible for it to be resolved. So, the skeptic then says the entire Bible must be rejected. But, though we do not really understand it, we cannot just reject it out of hand. Perhaps someone in the future will be able to truly explain how light can be both a particle and a wave and someone can truly explain how Jesus is both God and man, at this time, we should accept it by faith.
