quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
but the biggies, ISTM, are as follows:-

- A God of love who has created most people with the intention of tormenting them for eternity.

- A God of love who has built so many forms of suffering into creation - such as diseases/deformities/disabilities, famine (droughts, floods, crop failures), earthquakes/tsunamis - which cannot be explained away as misuse of the blessing of human freedom, such as war can be...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

- A premium on Christian unity, alongside a lack of clarity in many major areas such as eschatology, pneumatology and ecclesiology which guarantees division and denominationalism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I wouldn't dismiss them as "chestnuts", Muddy.

They are all too real, and I for one stick with my faith despite the fact that I don't have satisfactory explanations for them, rather than because I do...

- OT admonitions to genocide and ethnic cleansing versus a total ban on violence for Christians individually or communally in the NT.

They, and others, cannot be dismissed by simply rolling our eyes and muttering, "Oh no, not THAT one again!"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I wouldn't dismiss them as "chestnuts", Muddy.

They are all too real, and I for one stick with my faith despite the fact that I don't have satisfactory explanations for them, rather than because I do.

There are countless trivial, and even pseudo-, contradictions, but the biggies, ISTM, are as follows:-

- A God of love who has created most people with the intention of tormenting them for eternity.

- A God of love who has built so many forms of suffering into creation - such as diseases/deformities/disabilities, famine (droughts, floods, crop failures), earthquakes/tsunamis - which cannot be explained away as misuse of the blessing of human freedom, such as war can be.

- A soteriology of justification by faith derivable from Pauline and Johannine sources, versus its absence, and replacement by a "works" soteriology, in the Synoptics.

- A premium on Christian unity, alongside a lack of clarity in many major areas such as eschatology, pneumatology and ecclesiology which guarantees division and denominationalism.

- OT admonitions to genocide and ethnic cleansing versus a total ban on violence for Christians individually or communally in the NT.

They, and others, cannot be dismissed by simply rolling our eyes and muttering, "Oh no, not THAT one again!"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Well, but these ones aren't in the Bible. They are derived from the assumptions some of us bring to the Bible.

---

quote:

---

I think this one derives from a total misunderstanding of the meaning of "unity".

---

Which is simply to say that there are different theories of what unity does or should consist of - another cause of division!

Historically, Christians have not only separated from one another over such issues, but killed one another as well.

You can argue that they should not have done so, based on your personal view of how unity should work, but the facts are that they did, that they did so sincerely based on what they genuinely believed was the right interpretation of Scripture, and that God must have foreseen that they would.

[corrected UBBCode trainwreck]

[ 06. June 2016, 05:58: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :
 
I came across this one the other day when I had a close encounter with a street evangelist. After initially being quite irritable with her and going back to say sorry and finish the dialogue more respectfully she stated explicitly that there were no contradictions in the Biblical text.

As others have said above there definitely are multiple contradictions and variations on various tales within the text. I think it would be intellectually dishonest to claim that there were not. The next step is how you handle these contradictions and variations.

Most Christians will probably make an argument that invokes allegory over literal meaning or bring up points about translations and copying bringing multiple meanings to the text. This to me is okay since it acknowledges a fact 'there are contradictions' but provides a framework within which you can accept them.

The OP asks how the existence of contractions would cause one to question the authenticity and validity of the Bible. From where I am standing my first question is authentic in what sense and valid in what sense?
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I don't think there is an obvious knock-out blow which shows that Jesus Christ never existed (or the various other conspiracy theories). I still think the narrative is engaging and that the best explanation is that the Incarnation was a Real Thing.

That said, there are some troubling things which mean that a reasonable person could question whether it is all a load of rubbish.

For me, the textural contradictions are the least important part of this. For me it is much more troubling to read all the books that didn't make it into the canon and to contemplate whether what exists is the best attempt to find texts that marry up.

We're then into the business of whether we trust influential people in the early church to have assembled a faithful narrative hundreds of years after the events that are described.

On the one hand, I think this leads to a basic inconsistency at the heart of Protestantism, in that the NT was assembled in the context of the church (the kind of church?) they/we don't believe in. But on the other hand, I think there is also a problem for the RCC and Orthodox in that some who were very involved seemed to be, well, weirdly unorthodox.

There have been a whole bunch of things that are much more recent but even with a whole lot of modern forms of information are still inexplicable. So it isn't a great surprise that there is weirdness about texts that are this old.

My base position is that there were a whole lot of "Christianities" available from the earliest times and that the NT was subsequently quote unquote redacted by the "winning" proto-orthodox camp. But I don't think that this makes the theology that we have inherited wrong.

Ultimately it is about faith. Either we believe in the continuity and tradition that is passed down to us, or we think that somehow, somewhere the message was corrupted before it got to us.

I don't see that it is possible to be absolutely certain in either direction.
 

---

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
You see I would argue that there are no contradictions in the Bible, because contradictions assume that the texts are a rigid and scientific account of events. They are not. The differences (for example) in the gospels are because they are accounts told by individuals as their understanding of the stories - because that was how people told stories then.

And the writing overall is not a textbook for how to be a Christian - it is stories of people trying to relate to God over centuries. It is not contradictions as much as personal stories.

In a sense, these alternative approaches are what makes the Bible authoritative for me, because it records failures as well as successes. I would consider the genocide in Exodus as an example of people failing to understand God, in spectacular fashion. It makes my pathetic failures seem somehow more forgiveable.

But I understand that this is simply my approach to reconciling them.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Back in my more full-on evangelical charismatic days there used to be a preacher who would regularly say, 'The Bible is full of contradictions ... and I believe them all!'

I think the issue Mudfrog raises only becomes a big issue if we insist on some form of scriptural inerrancy or infallibility in a conservative evangelical kind of way ... and yes, I know there are plenty of shades, grades and nuances across the spectrum between out-and-out ardent verbal plenary inspiration literalist and more 'developed' forms of belief in inerrancy ...

But that could take us into Dead Horse territory.

FWIW, I think there are equal and opposite errors to avoid at both extremes in arguments of this kind. On the one hand, like the street evangelist cited here, we can shrug our shoulders and engage in a kind of hermeneutical limbo dance in attempt to demonstrate that contradictions don't exist ... and thereby kid ourselves - or else we can run to the opposite extreme and magnify both contradictions and apparent contradictions in such a way as to say, 'Well, it's all unrealiable, so there's no point in believing any of it ...'

In the messiness and murkiness of life, I don't believe the choice is anywhere near as clear-cut as that.

Neither the Church Fathers nor the Reformers insisted on an absolute literal understanding of every biblical text nor where they that concerned about contradictions - despite the selective proof-texting of various inerrantists who insist otherwise ...

Both Luther and Calvin were happy not to accept some of the numbers involved in OT accounts of battles and massacres ... some of the Fathers were more than happy to allegorise things in a way we'd find baffling today ...

There are ways to 'reconcile' or come to terms with anomalies - but I don't think the traditional evangelical methods - at least as held at the more conservative end of the spectrum - hold water.

Some of the hermeneutical gymnastics some of these guys deploy go well beyond reason and common sense.

That's my two-happ'orth for what it's worth ...

And welcome back Kaplan Corday, I hope you enjoyed your European trip!
 

---

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :
 
I think the "chestnuts" term is fair when the issues are those that people keep returning to, like the proverbial dog coming back to its own vomit, refusing to move on until all contradictions have been "answered".

The most obvious one I can think of is the account of Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus. It's recounted three times in the book of Acts. Did the people with him hear a voice or not?

The accounts contradict one another, so at least one must be partially inaccurate.

But Mudfrog correctly identifies the underlying purpose behind most of the claims of contradictions: to throw the baby out with bathwater. i.e. If X is in the bible and X turns out to be inaccurate then the whole bible is inaccurate.

That's the metanarrative behind attacks on the bible. I wouldn't call it logic, because it's not logical. It's a great exercise in not being able to see the wood for the trees.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, but the same apparently inexorable logic seems to apply to those who insist on scriptural inerrancy.

It's not just those who, like W C Fields, tend to read the Bible 'looking for loopholes', but those who insist on scriptural inerrancy (framed in late 19th/early 20th century conservative Protestant terms) who engage in that sort of behaviour.

This article, from an evangelical perspective, is a good corrective to that particular way of thinking:

http://www.quodlibet.net/articles/perry-inerrancy.shtml

The author cites several examples of highly conservative evangelicals who bend over backwards to reconcile the irreconcilable in order to defend their particularly rigid take on the authority of scripture.

Of course, those who set out to pick it all to bits do the same, only in reverse. 'If I can show a contradiction here or there then the whole thing will collapse ...'

I don't think the great Truths of Almighty God balance on a knife-edge in this way.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
One really glaring one to me has always been David's census, inspired directly by God according to the Samuel account, but by Satan in the Chronicles account.

It matters because it shows a very different idea of the source of evil; in the Samuel theology God sends both good and evil whereas in Chronicles the Satan character is proposed as a source of evil. As such, it goes right into questions of the nature of God.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, there is that, but again, there are ways of reconciling the apparent contradictions ... there are scriptural instances where God appears to 'use' Satan as an agent to achieve some greater aim ...

But the problem of Theodicy remains.

Ultimately, I can 'live' with the contradictions there as I don't see these accounts so much as a journalistic narrative as people's attempts to wrestle with events and come to terms with them theologically.

'Heck, there's a whopping big plague ... we must have done something wrong ...'
'God must be punishing us for something. Whatever could it be? Perhaps it was that census?'
'I say it's not God but Satan ...'
'No, I say it's God who is doing the punishing ...'
'Could it not be both?'

And so on and so forth ...
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sipech:
I think the "chestnuts" term is fair when the issues are those that people keep returning to, like the proverbial dog coming back to its own vomit, refusing to move on until all contradictions have been "answered".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macrina:
I came across this one the other day when I had a close encounter with a street evangelist. After initially being quite irritable with her and going back to say sorry and finish the dialogue more respectfully she stated explicitly that there were no contradictions in the Biblical text.

As others have said above there definitely are multiple contradictions and variations on various tales within the text. I think it would be intellectually dishonest to claim that there were not. The next step is how you handle these contradictions and variations.

Most Christians will probably make an argument that invokes allegory over literal meaning or bring up points about translations and copying bringing multiple meanings to the text. This to me is okay since it acknowledges a fact 'there are contradictions' but provides a framework within which you can accept them.

The OP asks how the existence of contractions would cause one to question the authenticity and validity of the Bible. From where I am standing my first question is authentic in what sense and valid in what sense?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, there is that, but again, there are ways of reconciling the apparent contradictions ... there are scriptural instances where God appears to 'use' Satan as an agent to achieve some greater aim ...

But the problem of Theodicy remains.

Ultimately, I can 'live' with the contradictions there as I don't see these accounts so much as a journalistic narrative as people's attempts to wrestle with events and come to terms with them theologically.

'Heck, there's a whopping big plague ... we must have done something wrong ...'
'God must be punishing us for something. Whatever could it be? Perhaps it was that census?'
'I say it's not God but Satan ...'
'No, I say it's God who is doing the punishing ...'
'Could it not be both?'

And so on and so forth ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:
plenary verbal inspiration -- that every word in the Bible was in effect directly dictated by God to passive human stenographers who contributed no gloss or perspective of their own

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macrina:
I came across this one the other day when I had a close encounter with a street evangelist. After initially being quite irritable with her and going back to say sorry and finish the dialogue more respectfully she stated explicitly that there were no contradictions in the Biblical text.

As others have said above there definitely are multiple contradictions and variations on various tales within the text. I think it would be intellectually dishonest to claim that there were not. The next step is how you handle these contradictions and variations.

Most Christians will probably make an argument that invokes allegory over literal meaning or bring up points about translations and copying bringing multiple meanings to the text. This to me is okay since it acknowledges a fact 'there are contradictions' but provides a framework within which you can accept them.

The OP asks how the existence of contractions would cause one to question the authenticity and validity of the Bible. From where I am standing my first question is authentic in what sense and valid in what sense?

---

Well, if you start with the hermeneutical suppositions of plenary verbal inspiration -- that every word in the Bible was in effect directly dictated by God to passive human stenographers who contributed no gloss or perspective of their own -- and divine perfection, then it would be impossible for the Bible to contain any untruths or contradictions or even clouded human apprehensions. If, further, you suppose that the only thing that lends the Bible any authority or value is its divine provenance, then any contradiction or other imperfection refutes its authority. So it becomes necessary to either (1)deny that any such contradictions exist, (2) deny the validity of the Bible entirely, or (3) deny the hermeneutical approach and find another that allows room for both imperfections in the text and its usefulness in supporting a valid faith. However, many readers are unwilling to consider a different hermeneutic (or are unaware that other hermeneutical approaches even exist), so they choose either (1) or (2).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Well, but these ones aren't in the Bible. They are derived from the assumptions some of us bring to the Bible.

---

It is every bit as much an assumption to assert that they aren't in the Bible as it is to assert that they are.

Certainly there is both a prima facie hermeneutical/exegetical and historical/doctrinal case for them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I think this one derives from a total misunderstanding of the meaning of "unity".

---

Which is simply to say that there are different theories of what unity does or should consist of - another cause of division!

Historically, Christians have not only separated from one another over such issues, but killed one another as well.

You can argue that they should not have done so, based on your personal view of how unity should work, but the facts are that they did, that they did so sincerely based on what they genuinely believed was the right interpretation of Scripture, and that God must have foreseen that they would.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ultimately, I can 'live' with the contradictions there as I don't see these accounts so much as a journalistic narrative as people's attempts to wrestle with events and come to terms with them theologically.

'Heck, there's a whopping big plague ... we must have done something wrong ...'
'God must be punishing us for something. Whatever could it be? Perhaps it was that census?'
'I say it's not God but Satan ...'
'No, I say it's God who is doing the punishing ...'
'Could it not be both?'

And so on and so forth ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It is every bit as much an assumption to assert that they aren't in the Bible as it is to assert that they are.

---

Like it's just as much an assumption to assert God exists as it is to assert that God doesn't exist?

It's usually thought that positive statements require evidence rather than negative statements.
 

---

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Oh, now that would be a fun game.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think a hermeneutical Cirque de Soleil would be fun ...

In the light of mdijon's latest comment in response to Kaplan, could I also suggest an Cataphatic/Apophatic Cirque de Soleil (or Cirque de Twilight?) where Shippies take turns to post Cataphatic assertions (or equivocations) followed by Apophatic ones?

Now THAT might be fun ...


 

---

Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macrina:

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macrina:
I came across this one the other day when I had a close encounter with a street evangelist. After initially being quite irritable with her and going back to say sorry and finish the dialogue more respectfully she stated explicitly that there were no contradictions in the Biblical text.

As others have said above there definitely are multiple contradictions and variations on various tales within the text. I think it would be intellectually dishonest to claim that there were not. The next step is how you handle these contradictions and variations.

Most Christians will probably make an argument that invokes allegory over literal meaning or bring up points about translations and copying bringing multiple meanings to the text. This to me is okay since it acknowledges a fact 'there are contradictions' but provides a framework within which you can accept them.

The OP asks how the existence of contractions would cause one to question the authenticity and validity of the Bible. From where I am standing my first question is authentic in what sense and valid in what sense?

---

Well, if you start with the hermeneutical suppositions of plenary verbal inspiration -- that every word in the Bible was in effect directly dictated by God to passive human stenographers who contributed no gloss or perspective of their own -- and divine perfection, then it would be impossible for the Bible to contain any untruths or contradictions or even clouded human apprehensions. If, further, you suppose that the only thing that lends the Bible any authority or value is its divine provenance, then any contradiction or other imperfection refutes its authority. So it becomes necessary to either (1)deny that any such contradictions exist, (2) deny the validity of the Bible entirely, or (3) deny the hermeneutical approach and find another that allows room for both imperfections in the text and its usefulness in supporting a valid faith. However, many readers are unwilling to consider a different hermeneutic (or are unaware that other hermeneutical approaches even exist), so they choose either (1) or (2).

---

I think you've pretty much just said what I also said, unless I'm missing a point?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:
I was trying to point out that contradictions in the text only invalidate the Bible as a source of authority if it is read from one particular, rigid hermeneutical perspective. From that perspective, it can only be either entirely true or entirely false, and it is true or false depending on whether or not you perceive imperfections in the text. But bringing a different set of hermeneutical presuppositions to your reading of the text allows you to find value and authority in it even while recognizing that it may also contain contradiction and paradox.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think a hermeneutical Cirque de Soleil would be fun ...

---

Done. Visit me there.

fair warning: I predict the evangelical team will win this one in a landslide. We've got far more practice playing the game...
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Thanks for engaging in all this guys

Apart from the census instance and the Paul's conversion example, no one has actually addressed (unless I missed it)the 'common man's' proptest that the Bible is full of contradictions i.e. it says one thing in this book and another in a different book.

In my experience the rather academic stuff about progressive revelation - a 'fighty' God in the OT and a 'nice' God in the NT, etc, is a little too philosophical for the non theologically minded bloke on the Clapham Omnibus who wants to know whether he can trust the history written in the Bible.

The issue that has been raised about inerrancy is both a red herring and a straw man!
It basically because not even an inerrantist - and I include myself ere - would ever tell you that every Bible verse must be taken literally! Who on earth would even think that? The's not what inerrant and infallible means!

No one believes the hills skip like lambs or the trees of the field clap their hands!. It's inerrant and infallible in matters of history and in matters of doctrine and faith.

So, in those matters of history and doctrine - where are the contradictions. the glaring 180 degree opposite truths that negate what it says somewhere else?
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:


So, in those matters of history and doctrine - where are the contradictions. the glaring 180 degree opposite truths that negate what it says somewhere else?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

So, in those matters of history and doctrine - where are the contradictions. the glaring 180 degree opposite truths that negate what it says somewhere else?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:
Well, if you start with the hermeneutical suppositions of plenary verbal inspiration --

---

Of course, this is how all good conversations should begin . I LOVE SHip of Fools!
 

---

Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :
 
Here's another one,

John the Baptist sent disciples to ask 'Are you the one who is to come, or are we to wait for another?'

and in another Gospel, the same John tell his own aforementioned disciples who informed him that jesus was baptising 'and all are going to him!.He said: 'No one can receive anything except what has been given from heaven. You yourselves are my witnesses that I said: 'I am not the Messiah'... he who has the bride is the bridegroom. The friend of the bridegroom who stands with him and hears him rejoices greatly at his voice... the one who comes from above is above all, the one who belongs to the earth is of the earth and speaks about earthly things...etc etc, finishing with: 'Whoever believes in this Son has eternal life.'

Did he know or did he not?
 

---

Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :
 
And how many donkeys did our Lord ride on, I'm dying to know.

Or what were centurions doing building synagogues in Galilee, which was not occupied?
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
With respect, Mudfrog, I think you're missing the point ...

I don't think anyone here believes that scriptural inerrantists take metaphorical material literally - hills skipping like lambs and so on ...

No-one I know who doesn't sign up for a Chicago Statement style position on Biblical Inerrancy would claim that.

As for the Man on The Clapham Omnibus, I had no idea you were addressing the question to him. I thought you were asking us what we thought.

---

quote:

---

What particular 'contradictions' do Shipmates consider might be seen as so damaging that they do, indeed, call into question the Bible's authenticity?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

And as for those 'contradictions' on that website, I can answer all of the first 20 that I read before I gave up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joesaphat:
And how many donkeys did our Lord ride on, I'm dying to know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
OK, let's look at one:

GE 6:4 There were Nephilim (giants) before the Flood.
GE 7:21 All creatures other than Noah and his clan were annihilated by the Flood.
NU 13:33 There were Nephilim after the Flood.

On the surface - taken literally (!) there is an inconsistency here. Giants in Canaan after the Exodus, who were descended from the original Nephilim? Indeed; how can they exist if only Noah's family survived the Flood?

Well, look at who said they saw giants in the land: The comment that they saw giants was patently untrue; it was an exaggeration on their part when they returned to the camp. Of course they didn't see giants, they were just taller people! And the Bible doesn't say that there were giants or that they were indeed the descendants of the pre-Flood ones. It was just the spies over egging the pudding because they were frightened and wanted to persuade the Israelites to turn back.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:


So, in those matters of history and doctrine - where are the contradictions. the glaring 180 degree opposite truths that negate what it says somewhere else?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joesaphat:
And how many donkeys did our Lord ride on, I'm dying to know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
When I asked 'What particular 'contradictions' do Shipmates consider might be seen as so damaging that they do, indeed, call into question the Bible's authenticity?' I meant 'might be seen by others. i.e. those who raise those 'old chestnuts' - people on the Clapham Omnibus, if you will.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joesaphat:
And how many donkeys did our Lord ride on, I'm dying to know.

---

This belongs down in the Cirque du Soleil thread, but I have heard some (with straight faces) suggest he rode a donkey AND a colt, with one leg slung over each... which sounds darn uncomfortable and a tad dangerous, but then, if you're riding to your inevitable death I guess that point's moot...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joesaphat:
And how many donkeys did our Lord ride on, I'm dying to know.

---

This belongs down in the Cirque du Soleil thread, but I have heard some (with straight faces) suggest he rode a donkey AND a colt, with one leg slung over each... which sounds darn uncomfortable and a tad dangerous, but then, if you're riding to your inevitable death I guess that point's moot...

---

Archeologists have recently discovered a photograph of Jesus entering Jerusalem, which they believe to be authentic, although further verification is planned. If authenticated, it would appear to settle the question -- although it would also raise others. Here it is:


http://todayilearned.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/riding-two-horses-at-a-time.jpg

---

quote:

---

It depends upon quite how high you set the bar for the Bible's authenticity.
If you claim that the Bible is only authentic if inerrant in matters of history, faith, and doctrine, then an inconsistency in something as trivial as what Pontius Pilate wrote on the cross above Jesus' head is sufficient.
If you have a different standard for authenticity then the number of contradictions that might damage that standard is lower.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joesaphat:
And how many donkeys did our Lord ride on, I'm dying to know.

---

This belongs down in the Cirque du Soleil thread, but I have heard some (with straight faces) suggest he rode a donkey AND a colt, with one leg slung over each... which sounds darn uncomfortable and a tad dangerous, but then, if you're riding to your inevitable death I guess that point's moot...

---

Archeologists have recently discovered a photograph of Jesus entering Jerusalem, which they believe to be authentic, although further verification is planned. If authenticated, it would appear to settle the question -- although it would also raise others. Here it is:


http://todayilearned.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/riding-two-horses-at-a-time.jpg

---

It wasn't donkeys or colts ... it was Volvos.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Thanks for engaging in all this guys

Apart from the census instance and the Paul's conversion example, no one has actually addressed (unless I missed it)the 'common man's' proptest that the Bible is full of contradictions i.e. it says one thing in this book and another in a different book.

In my experience the rather academic stuff about progressive revelation - a 'fighty' God in the OT and a 'nice' God in the NT, etc, is a little too philosophical for the non theologically minded bloke on the Clapham Omnibus who wants to know whether he can trust the history written in the Bible.

The issue that has been raised about inerrancy is both a red herring and a straw man!
It basically because not even an inerrantist - and I include myself ere - would ever tell you that every Bible verse must be taken literally! Who on earth would even think that? The's not what inerrant and infallible means!

No one believes the hills skip like lambs or the trees of the field clap their hands!. It's inerrant and infallible in matters of history and in matters of doctrine and faith.

So, in those matters of history and doctrine - where are the contradictions. the glaring 180 degree opposite truths that negate what it says somewhere else?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I wouldn't dismiss them as "chestnuts", Muddy.

They are all too real, and I for one stick with my faith despite the fact that I don't have satisfactory explanations for them, rather than because I do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
How about the circumstances of Judas' death, Mudfrog?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It is every bit as much an assumption to assert that they aren't in the Bible as it is to assert that they are.

---

Like it's just as much an assumption to assert God exists as it is to assert that God doesn't exist?

It's usually thought that positive statements require evidence rather than negative statements.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joesaphat:
And how many donkeys did our Lord ride on, I'm dying to know.

---

This belongs down in the Cirque du Soleil thread, but I have heard some (with straight faces) suggest he rode a donkey AND a colt, with one leg slung over each... which sounds darn uncomfortable and a tad dangerous, but then, if you're riding to your inevitable death I guess that point's moot...

---

Archeologists have recently discovered a photograph of Jesus entering Jerusalem, which they believe to be authentic, although further verification is planned. If authenticated, it would appear to settle the question -- although it would also raise others. Here it is:


http://todayilearned.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/riding-two-horses-at-a-time.jpg

---

It wasn't donkeys or colts ... it was Volvos.

---

Jesus was Swedish? Well then, that would explain his obsession with fish. But it also means "donkey" and "colt" were metaphors. Curse you, inerrantist hermeneutic!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joesaphat:
And how many donkeys did our Lord ride on, I'm dying to know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
What is your understanding of innerantist and infallible in matters of doctrine, faith and history Mudfrog?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joesaphat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
How about the circumstances of Judas' death, Mudfrog?

---

Yes, these are pretty much irreconcilable

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

As others have pointed out, what this shows is that everyone accepts some level of interpretation of at least some parts of the text.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I suppose Muddy would answer that the text says that the spies said X, and therefore it's true that they said X. But not necessarily true that the spies were right.

Similarly one might argue that Luke was right about what the Apostle said Judas had done, but the Apostle was wrong in what he said.

---

quote:

---

It's all a bit irrelevant really. There's plenty of history in the OT that's clearly bunk. It's of the same historical kidney as Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain, complete with giants and dragons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

Well, the accounts certainly conflict. My IVP commentary on Acts suggests Luke was repeating what was commonly reported.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I suppose Muddy would answer that the text says that the spies said X, and therefore it's true that they said X. But not necessarily true that the spies were right.

Similarly one might argue that Luke was right about what the Apostle said Judas had done, but the Apostle was wrong in what he said.

---

Yes, I see that. But that begs the question of how we can be sure of anything in the NT - maybe all the reports of miracles were wrong. And so on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

To me it is much simpler just to believe that the bible is a collection of writings from different authors which were collated later. That they were never intended to be seen as a cohesive whole.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

To me it is much simpler just to believe that the bible is a collection of writings from different authors which were collated later. That they were never intended to be seen as a cohesive whole.

---

I agree, but that begs the question of why it should be considered authoritative, and in the case of inconsistencies, which conflicting account is more reliable.

On the other hand, the proposition that everything in it is of divine origin, and therefore perfectly true and perfectly consistent with everything else in it, and therefore perfectly reliable, falls apart as soon as you finish reading Genesis 1 -- because immediately after wrapping up a detailed account of a six-day creation, the text (at Gen. 2:4) just as clearly describes God making everything in only one day. It simply can't say both six days and one day and also remain divinely, perfectly consistent. And that's only the first of many, many other inconsistencies and contradictions that appear throughout the text.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:
as soon as you finish reading Genesis 1 -- because immediately after wrapping up a detailed account of a six-day creation, the text (at Gen. 2:4) just as clearly describes God making everything in only one day.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:
as soon as you finish reading Genesis 1 -- because immediately after wrapping up a detailed account of a six-day creation, the text (at Gen. 2:4) just as clearly describes God making everything in only one day.

---

It says no such thing

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

To me it is much simpler just to believe that the bible is a collection of writings from different authors which were collated later. That they were never intended to be seen as a cohesive whole.

---

I agree, but that begs the question of why it should be considered authoritative, and in the case of inconsistencies, which conflicting account is more reliable.

On the other hand, the proposition that everything in it is of divine origin, and therefore perfectly true and perfectly consistent with everything else in it, and therefore perfectly reliable, falls apart as soon as you finish reading Genesis 1 -- because immediately after wrapping up a detailed account of a six-day creation, the text (at Gen. 2:4) just as clearly describes God making everything in only one day. It simply can't say both six days and one day and also remain divinely, perfectly consistent. And that's only the first of many, many other inconsistencies and contradictions that appear throughout the text.

---

Not as big a problem when you realize that Gen. 1 is written in the form of Hebrew poetry. Then it's no more problematic than when Psalm 18 says God is a rock.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Oh please let's not try to say definitively what a poem does or doesn't say. That's the whole point; it is a poem.

Nobody walks lonely as a cloud, daffodils don't crowd.. etc and so on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:


(And to be very precise, cliffdweller called Chapter 1 poetry, but the contradictory verse is in chapter 2. To be even more precise, most text scholars would say the creation poem of Chapter 1 ends at verse 2:3.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:


(And to be very precise, cliffdweller called Chapter 1 poetry, but the contradictory verse is in chapter 2. To be even more precise, most text scholars would say the creation poem of Chapter 1 ends at verse 2:3.)

---

I understand. But I also think the point stands: we're not going to get very far trying to argue over individual lines of poetry and/or Genesis.

---

Yes, I think we're all on the same page here.

My point was that this particular example (Gen. 1 & 2) isn't really so much about infallibility, it's about literalism. The list of contradictions as well as logical absurdities (Ps. 18:2) gets pretty long when you have to take each and every thing not only as true, but as literally true.

As an evangelical, I do hold to infallibility (albeit not inerrancy-- a pedantic, yet important, different IMHO). And that carries enough challenges-- e.g. the much more significant contradiction cites on the first page between the conquest narratives & Jesus' pacifist message. Adding literalism to the mix amps that up considerably, meaning you inevitably have to surrender to a very high degree of cognitive dissonance/ denial to make it work.

Let the circus begin!
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
There's the contradictory instructions regarding the debt-indenture* of female fellow Israelites. According to Deuteronomy Israelite female indentured servants are to be given the same treatment as Israelite males in the same situation. Exodus, on the other hand, says women are "not to go free as male servants do" [NIV]. This contradiction is somewhat problematic for a legal code.

You may think this is irrelevant to "the bloke on the Clapham omnibus", who likely doesn't have any indentured servants of either gender, but questions like the treatment of debtors or workers seem like they're still pretty relevant.

Another bit of internal Biblical contradiction are the descriptions of The Day the Sun Stood Still, as blogger Fred Clark puts it. It's interesting to read his description of not realizing there are four different versions of the story in the Bible, each of which contradicts details of the others, because he 'knew' the story already and read what he expected rather than what the text actually said.

quote:

---

But I first encountered this story, many times over, long before I became an English major. I first encountered this story in Sunday school, where we learned the legend from the first half of Joshua 10 and never touched the less outrageous version of the same story from the second half of the chapter, or the pithy version offered later in Joshua 15, or the summary of the same events and conquests (carried out by different people at a different time) in the book of Judges.

But I also know that I must have read all of these different versions of this story, several times, as I read the Bible cover to cover repeatedly. And in all those times I plowed through the book of Joshua and then on through Judges, I don’t ever remember noticing the several repetitions and incompatible iterations of this story.

That’s interesting. In my defense — and in defense of the many, many Christians like me who overlooked this too — this story, in all its variations, is convoluted, hard to follow, and filled with unfamiliar names of kings and cities. If one isn’t reading very carefully, a long list of names like “Adonizedek” can easily get turned into a mental shortcut like “Ad-something” or “Guy With Long Name That Starts With ‘A.’” And so it’s easy not to notice when Adonizedek switches to Adonibezek, or when some weirdly named king later turns out to be a city rather than a person.

But still, for all of that, the bottom line remains that I did not notice when the Bible gave me four different versions of the same story because I wasn’t expecting the Bible to do that. I came away thinking that I had read what I had expected to read rather than what was actually there, in the actual text.

<snip>

Once we do start to notice these variations and contradictions, we’re tempted to think that we’ve discovered something that the original compilers, editors, storytellers and audiences did not see. We arrogantly assume we’re the first readers to notice these contradictions, rather than the very last people to finally arrive on the same page as those who first wrote this all down.

That leads us astray into a whole other set of presumptions and expectations that can, again, cause us to miss the actual text in front of us. We start to presume that these ancient storytellers were trying to present several harmonious, wholly consistent versions of the same story and then miserably failing to do so. We start to presume they failed because they were stupid and artless — so stupid and artless that they didn’t even notice their own epic failure. Silly, foolish ancients.

A better presumption, I think, is to assume these storytellers recognized what they were doing and did it deliberately and that something else is going on other than an attempt to provide harmonious, wholly consistent stories that would satisfy the modern sensibilities of readers 2,500 years later. To understand the stories they told, we need to understand the choices they made in telling those stories. We can’t do that if we presume that they never made choices, only mistakes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:


As an evangelical, I do hold to infallibility (albeit not inerrancy-- a pedantic, yet important, different IMHO). And that carries enough challenges-- e.g. the much more significant contradiction cites on the first page between the conquest narratives & Jesus' pacifist message. Adding literalism to the mix amps that up considerably, meaning you inevitably have to surrender to a very high degree of cognitive dissonance/ denial to make it work.

Let the circus begin!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:
Are there contradictions or inconsistencies in the text that are so profound that they cannot be reconciled to the supposition that scripture is infallibly reliable, at least as to the more limited matters of faith, doctrine, and morals, even if not historical fact? If so, what are they? If not, how can the contradictions be accommodated and accepted without abandoning the hermeneutical supposition?

(I'm asking from a serious Purgatory perspective, not a facetious Circus perspective.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:


As an evangelical, I do hold to infallibility (albeit not inerrancy-- a pedantic, yet important, different IMHO). And that carries enough challenges-- e.g. the much more significant contradiction cites on the first page between the conquest narratives & Jesus' pacifist message. Adding literalism to the mix amps that up considerably, meaning you inevitably have to surrender to a very high degree of cognitive dissonance/ denial to make it work.

Let the circus begin!

---

I'm pretty sure I understand the pedantic distinction you draw between infallibility and inerrancy, and I respect it.

So, let's set the extreme hermeneutics of literalism and inerrancy aside as red herrings, and ask Muddy's question a slightly different way: Are there contradictions or inconsistencies in the text that are so profound that they cannot be reconciled to the supposition that scripture is infallibly reliable, at least as to the more limited matters of faith, doctrine, and morals, even if not historical fact? If so, what are they? If not, how can the contradictions be accommodated and accepted without abandoning the hermeneutical supposition?

(I'm asking from a serious Purgatory perspective, not a facetious Circus perspective.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:
Are there contradictions or inconsistencies in the text that are so profound that they cannot be reconciled to the supposition that scripture is infallibly reliable, at least as to the more limited matters of faith, doctrine, and morals, even if not historical fact? If so, what are they? If not, how can the contradictions be accommodated and accepted without abandoning the hermeneutical supposition?

(I'm asking from a serious Purgatory perspective, not a facetious Circus perspective.)

---

I'll start by saying that I do not find the witness of scriptures to be infallibly reliable on the topics of Christology and the Trinity. Rather, it is confusingly equivocal, to the point that no one clear doctrine can be drawn out of any particular verse or verses without ignoring seemingly contradictory passages elsewhere. If the scriptural witness were more infallible, the early Church would not have struggled through several centuries of Christological controversies.

However, I do not think the failure of scripture to address these doctrinal points clearly and unequivocally renders it completely unreliable, nor even to invalidate an "infallibilist" hermeneutic. Rather, it tells us that these particular topics are better treated as matters open to a range of theological speculation rather than as points of infallibly correct doctrine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:
Are there contradictions or inconsistencies in the text that are so profound that they cannot be reconciled to the supposition that scripture is infallibly reliable, at least as to the more limited matters of faith, doctrine, and morals, even if not historical fact? If so, what are they? If not, how can the contradictions be accommodated and accepted without abandoning the hermeneutical supposition?

---

Well, obviously for me, no, since I'm still holding to infallibility.

...

I tend to go with the "crucicentric" leg of the Bebbington evangelical quadrilateral and suggest as a rough rubric: the closer a narrative is to Christ, the more reliable it can be assumed to be. So in the Joshua-vs.-Gospels contest, Gospels win.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:
Are there contradictions or inconsistencies in the text that are so profound that they cannot be reconciled to the supposition that scripture is infallibly reliable, at least as to the more limited matters of faith, doctrine, and morals, even if not historical fact? If so, what are they? If not, how can the contradictions be accommodated and accepted without abandoning the hermeneutical supposition?

---

Well, obviously for me, no, since I'm still holding to infallibility.

...

I tend to go with the "crucicentric" leg of the Bebbington evangelical quadrilateral and suggest as a rough rubric: the closer a narrative is to Christ, the more reliable it can be assumed to be. So in the Joshua-vs.-Gospels contest, Gospels win.

---

I consider the figure of Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels to represent the most fully developed human apprehension (which I think is saying the same thing as the fullest divine revelation) of God's character and will, so I can easily embrace your "crucicentric" test. But does that mean you don't really consider Joshua completely infallible, at least not in the sense that the conventional doctrine of infallibility contemplates? I have never heard it described as allowing for relatively greater and lesser degrees of fallibility or infallibility, which is what you seem to be describing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:
If not, how can the contradictions be accommodated and accepted without abandoning the hermeneutical supposition?

---

quote:

---

"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[I hold with the traditional views of Trinity and Christology (big surprise), while acknowledging that the biblical record on both shows an evolution of thought.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[I hold with the traditional views of Trinity and Christology (big surprise), while acknowledging that the biblical record on both shows an evolution of thought.

---

Interesting. When I think about it, "an evolution of thought" pretty nicely summarizes my own hermeneutical supposition that I bring to reading the text. It's why, for example, I can hold the Torah and Joshua and Kings and Chronicles in comfortable tension with, say, Jonah and Amos and the Gospels: the entire Bible is a transcript of both enduring faith and growing moral and spiritual apprehension. But can seeing traces in the text of more mature (human) thought superseding less mature (human) thought be consistent with a hermeneutic that holds the entire text from first to last to be authoritative?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:
If not, how can the contradictions be accommodated and accepted without abandoning the hermeneutical supposition?

---

I think that the recognition of your sig is the answer:

quote:

---

"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72

---

I am in full agreement that the Bible contains irreconcilable contradictions. The only way to reconcile them is to understand that the truth is lodged within types and images.

Even though biblical facts and doctrines are sometimes contradictory, these types and images are surprisingly consistent throughout. They hardly vary from book to book, or even from Old Testament to New.

Swedenborgianism is mainly taken up with how these types and images work, and why the Bible is constructed this way.

I think that this provides a satisfactory and adequate answer to Mudfrog's question, and I am disappointed that it has never caught on in Christian thought.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:
So yes indeed, it says quite clearly that God made creation in a single day.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I like the idea of types and images; this is the way my own thinking has developed. However, it led me towards other religions, which also have interesting symbolisms about God. I suppose for many Christians, this is the danger of tropes, they reach out beyond barriers, to a place where God is not 'cabin'd, cribbed, confined'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
you don't have anti- Trinitarian texts (at least in the NT)

---

quote:

---

Jesus Christ belonged to the true race of prophets. He saw with open eye the mystery of the soul. Drawn by its severe harmony, ravished with its beauty, he lived in it, and had his being there. Alone in all history, he estimated the greatness of man. One man was true to what is in you and me. He saw that God incarnates himself in man, and evermore goes forth anew to take possession of his world. He said, in this jubilee of sublime emotion, `I am divine. Through me, God acts; through me, speaks. Would you see God, see me; or, see thee, when thou also thinkest as I now think.' But what a distortion did his doctrine and memory suffer in the same, in the next, and the following ages! There is no doctrine of the Reason which will bear to be taught by the Understanding. The understanding caught this high chant from the poet's lips, and said, in the next age, `This was Jehovah come down out of heaven. I will kill you, if you say he was a man.' The idioms of his language, and the figures of his rhetoric, have usurped the place of his truth; and churches are not built on his principles, but on his tropes. Christianity became a Mythus, as the poetic teaching of Greece and of Egypt, before. He spoke of miracles; for he felt that man's life was a miracle, and all that man doth, and he knew that this daily miracle shines, as the character ascends. But the word Miracle, as pronounced by Christian churches, gives a false impression; it is Monster. It is not one with the blowing clover and the falling rain.

He felt respect for Moses and the prophets; but no unfit tenderness at postponing their initial revelations, to the hour and the man that now is; to the eternal revelation in the heart. Thus was he a true man. Having seen that the law in us is commanding, he would not suffer it to be commanded. Boldly, with hand, and heart, and life, he declared it was God. Thus is he, as I think, the only soul in history who has appreciated the worth of a man.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
you don't have anti- Trinitarian texts (at least in the NT)

---

Ha! I'll see you over in the Circus for that one!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
C'mon Mudfrog. Can't start a thread then leave it hanging.

I don't know any innerantists. I'm genuinely curious how you deal with these problems.

---

quote:

---

And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are not least among the rulers of Judah

---

(Matt 6.2, cf Micah 5.2)

However, there's a whole Christian industry devoted to "reconciling" contradictions like this, and you'll never win an argument with them. For example, how many angels were there at the tomb on the day of the Resurrection? Matthew and Mark say one; Luke and John say two. But "Ah," say our inerrantists, "'One' might mean 'at least one', so there were two." Fine, but if I tell you there's a man waiting round the next corner to attack you with an axe, and you think, "Well it's only one man, I can take him on", you're going to be pretty miffed if there turn out to be six.
 

---

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :
 
That one's gone straight to the Quotes collection!
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Sipech--

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sipech:
Golden Key

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the defence about the original manuscripts originated partly in response to the Islamic claims. It became a form one-upmanship of "my text is more reliable than yours" where the ability to trace the text to its origins was taken as (mistaken) proxy for its reliability and truthfulness.

---

Hmmm. Haven't come across that idea before. I doubt that most/any inerrantists have. If someone had raised that idea at my old church, I'm guessing a response might have been that it was the other way around--that the Old and New Testaments were given directly, and Islam copied that to give the Quran legitimacy.

(Note to any Muslims: I'm not personally saying that.)

ISTM, though, that religions, belief systems, secular ideologies, communities, etc. go through stages of how they view their teachings, founders, and roots. Can be progressive stages, or believers taking a particular stage for their own.

E.g., the beginnings of the US: our founders, the documents they wrote, the Revolution. The founders were rather a mixed bunch, in terms of ideas, personality, and behavior. Some of them hated each other. Some owned slaves. Some thought we'd need a bloody revolution, now and again, to keep the new gov't in line. And, to a large extent, they were flying by the seat of their pants, and didn't know if "the American Experiment" would succeed. I read that they once trashed a pub, the night before an important vote. Their documents left out important things, like ending slavery, and equal rights for citizens who weren't white, male landowners.

But a lot of mythology built up around them. They were transformed into saints, more or less, and their ideas and documents made sacred. Some people put that all together with Christianity and manifest destiny--God wanted us to be here, inspired the founders, etc. Some see the founders as people, albeit extraordinary. Some don't trust the gov't (and, really, trusting the gov't *is* unAmerican, which is why the checks and balances)--some towards the extreme end of the spectrum take that whole "need more revolutions" thing very seriously. And this doesn't even get into the opinions of or effect on people of color, especially African Americans and Native Americans. Or, say, Sally Hemmings.

These varying opinions and factions affect voting, policy, and attitudes, and even the stability of individual lives. If you have a belief that works for you, you may be very unsettled if someone tries to convince you otherwise. So if you go with the whole manifest destiny and Christian nation theme, you're apt to get upset if shown that some of the founders weren't even Christians. If you believe the Bill of Rights is sacred, you may be perturbed about possible gun control.

Sorry. It's late/early here, and my brain just gave out. That was a long way of replying to you, Barnabas, and others, that it's not just fundamentalists that cling to their beliefs. Politics, sports, brand of beer, scientific theories...their supporters divide on similar lines.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I get all that, Golden Key.

Now, brands of beer ...
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Can, bottle, on tap, kegerator...
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Sorry guys, I've been away for most days in the last couple of weeks.
I see we've been transferred

I believe the Bible is infallible and inerrant but that doesn't mean it's all literally true as we read it at face value.

The only exception to that would be to say that broadly speaking, wheat is evidently intended to be historical at the time of writing is accurate insofar as the text allows. That means that where the Bible says something, it might not give the whole picture - but it possibly wasn't the intention of the writer to give the whole picture so, for example (just off the top of my head) when Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt, I can't say that it happened as most of us imagine it. But whilst I can't say what it looked like, what the process was or how long it took - or even what really caused it - that doesn't mean that it didn't basically happen.

Furthermore, I don't believe that infallibility or inerrancy necessarily demand a 6 day creation. I believe that Genesis 1 is liturgical and not literally true as far as plants and seas and stuff is concerned. But where the Bible is infallible is when it asserts that all things were created by, through and in Christ by the word of God.

I wonder if this might be helpful in clarifying what 'they' say is inerrancy and infallibility:

Your comments please

One final point.
How did Judas die?

Well, one answer is this: Matthew says Judas hanged himself. That's fine.
Luke says he fell headlong and his bowels split open and his guts fell out.

The question might be this:
What is Doctor Luke in about?
He doesn't tell us why Judas fell over - was he running? Was he walking? Was he pushed over onto the flat ground (it was a field after all and not a cliff edge!)
If he fell over in his field, why on earth would he "burst open in the middle and all his entrails gush out"?
When does that ever happen to someone who trips over their feet in the street, or falls over a furrow in a ploughed field?

For someone to spill their guts from a massive open abdominal wound, there must be something extraordinary going on.

Might it be, as some have suggested, that he did indeed hang himself in his field - presumably from a tree - and that after a while his bloated body either fell or the branch broke (speculation I know) and his distended body then burst open in that manner.

I don't know. The Bible doesn't tell us - but what interests me is why, if it's such a 'contradiction' did a scribe add something to harmonise the synoptics? Maybe, the early scribes knew exactly what was meant and they felt they didn't need to resolve it.

How did Diana die?

The event was a car crash. She was killed in a car crash.

Her death certificate gives a whole bunch of medical causes for her decease.

Maybe Judas did hang and then fall headlong but, according to the Gospel writers' needs and motives for writing, only one 'side' of the story actually mattered.
Who knows?

The infallible thing is that Judas was dead.
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Well, I'm another inerrantist, but if you'll forgive me, I don't think it was the world's best idea to try to tackle all supposed contradictions of the Bible en masse in a single thread. Because they range from "Okay, I can see how this is a problem for people" through "I just don't know, probably only God knows" and all the way back to "You've got to be kidding, do you really think THAT is a contradiction or are you smoking something, and can I have some too?" Just trying to sort out the "I really want to understand this" people from the trolls and one-shot wonders is pages and pages.

I think it would make sense to take a single apparent contradiction and devote a thread to it. Then you can get good discussion going, and if necessary dive into the culture, history, language, or whatever else may underlie that particular confusion. Try to do it with all the issues at once, though, and I fear you'll simply get all the mockers.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I'll have a chat with the Keryg Hosts. Personally, I think there is value in having a thread called "Biblical Inerrancy: Examination of Specific Scriptures" which would deal with particular scriptures in sequence, rather than having a new thread every time. That way all the in depth examinations would be in one place. Anyway I'll have a chat on Host Board and get back to you all.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
No, Golden Key, it has to be cask-conditioned or in bottle. None of these wretched cans or 'kegs'.

Ok, to be fair, I'll put up with craft-beer on keg, but when it comes to ale, it has to undergo secondary fermentation in a cask or a bottle ...

(Ok, secondary fermentation can be difficult in bottles, but it can and does work. I can't pretend that every bottle of beer I have in my house is bottle-conditioned but by and large it will be).
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@Mudfrog, I don't have an issue with there apparently being two divergent accounts of how Judas died - the accounts can be quite easily reconciled as you say.

Nor am I that worried by discrepancies in the Gospel accounts as to what was actually written on the placard placed about Christ's head on the cross. Neither were the early Church Fathers it would seem who were quite as aware of apparent discrepancies as we are.

What does bother me more, though, are things like the story of Elijah and the Captains of 50 - 2 Kings 1:10 - http://biblehub.com/2_kings/1-10.htm

The pattern of the story, things happening in threes and so on, sounds very reminiscent of a folk-tale to me ... the same sort of pattern we get in The Three Little Pigs or The Three Billy Goats Gruff ...

Similarly, I do get worried by attempts to insist that Jonah really was swallowed for three days by a giant fish and that ancient Nineveh really did take that long to walk across or around because of how time was measured or treatments of the Book of Job that act as if there's some kind of black-box style recording of dialogue between the Almighty and Satan about God's servant Job ...
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Mudfrog, I don't have an issue with there apparently being two divergent accounts of how Judas died - the accounts can be quite easily reconciled as you say.

Nor am I that worried by discrepancies in the Gospel accounts as to what was actually written on the placard placed about Christ's head on the cross. Neither were the early Church Fathers it would seem who were quite as aware of apparent discrepancies as we are.

What does bother me more, though, are things like the story of Elijah and the Captains of 50 - 2 Kings 1:10 - http://biblehub.com/2_kings/1-10.htm

The pattern of the story, things happening in threes and so on, sounds very reminiscent of a folk-tale to me ... the same sort of pattern we get in The Three Little Pigs or The Three Billy Goats Gruff ...

Similarly, I do get worried by attempts to insist that Jonah really was swallowed for three days by a giant fish and that ancient Nineveh really did take that long to walk across or around because of how time was measured or treatments of the Book of Job that act as if there's some kind of black-box style recording of dialogue between the Almighty and Satan about God's servant Job ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, I have some sympathy with that view, Mudfrog. Although I wouldn't enter into speculation as to how many times someone strolling across Nineveh stopped for a kebab or to visit the loo.

But would your defence of the historicity of Exodus extend to the historicity of Joshua and the massacres/genocide recounted there?

My own take would be that these things are based on historic events - interpreted from the point of view of the Israelites - part of their 'foundation myth' if you like - with 'myth' understood in the C S Lewis sense - but not necessarily blow-by-blow accounts in the reportage sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Now about the Elijah and the Captains of 50 story?

Is that an issue where literary genre and rhetorical features such as repetition - think Three Billy Goats Gruff - come into the equation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I would never treat the history of the Bible as if it were a CS Lewis style allegory.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:


I believe the Bible is infallible and inerrant but that doesn't mean it's all literally true as we read it at face value.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:
The text, since it contains only the author's inspiration and not the reader's necessary discernment, is incomplete -- and therefore just as fallible as the reader.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I would never treat the history of the Bible as if it were a CS Lewis style allegory.

---

If you are willing, as it would appear, to consign Jonah to pretty much that category, you are already not an inerrantist by the standards of many people I know, and you are well on your way to adopting a fresh appraisal of what might presently appear to you to be other objective historical accounts - as being something much less literalist than you might presently believe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fausto:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:


I believe the Bible is infallible and inerrant but that doesn't mean it's all literally true as we read it at face value.

---

Can something be simultaneously both infallible or inerrant and capable of being misunderstood or misinterpreted? To me, that's where the doctrines of scriptural infallibility and inerrancy fail. For example, a document that can lead large numbers of people to believe falsely that the entire universe was created completely in its final form in only six days only six thousand years ago, and that even more recently the Red Sea magically parted and two million people wandered around Sinai for forty years without leaving the slightest archeological trace, is fallible rather than inerrant, even if a different interpretation of the same narratives can teach different reliable truths about different matters.

If drawing the truth from a text requires subjective interpretation, then the text itself is equally capable of supporting truth or error, depending on the reliability of the interpretation. The reader must then rely on his/her own external inspiration to recognize the truth and reject the error, rather than on the author's inspiration alone. The text, since it contains only the author's inspiration and not the reader's necessary discernment, is incomplete -- and therefore just as fallible as the reader.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I am only willing to 'consign' it to that category because there is nothing in the text to date it, set it in an historical context or claim historicity. If it had said 'In the fifth year of so-and-so's reign, when the prophet such-and such was preaching, Jonah, the grandson of that famous historical figure, who's-your-father...' then I would've quite certain it was an historical account.

---

quote:

---

The big discovery for me is that the takeaways from Numbers (for instance) in terms of how we understand God and what he might expect of us in our daily lives today change little regardless of which of these ways one views the text.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Forgive me, but there is nothing in the text that insists on there being a 6000 year old universe. I gather this was inferred in error by a man who, like many others, took things in a literal way rather than looking at the historical and cultural background of the writing and its genre.

I think those who insist on a 6000 year old young earth are viewing Archbishop Ussher as being the inerrant one, not the Bible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The signs are obviously inerrant but sometimes I don't read them properly.

---

I think you have just opened up the yawning chasm of how to decide when you are reading them properly.

To my mind, the destinations inerrantist readings of the Bible take people are not necessarily the right ones, or very appealing, either.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Hostly discussions are ongoing. It's a close call

B62, DH Host
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I'm with Eutychus here.

Because something written in antiquity is broadly historical - Tacitus's account of the Roman conquest of Britain for instance - it doesn't mean that it consists of reportage in the modern sense.

So, for instance, I have no difficulty believing that Calgacus was king - or at least some kind of head-honcho - of the Picts when the Romans won the battle of Mons Graupius - but that doesn't mean that he actually made the speech that Tacitus attributes to him.

Now, I know we are not dealing with inspired texts there in the scriptural sense, but I don't see why we have to suspend credulity or fail to subject the scriptures to the form of scrutiny we'd apply to any other ancient set of documents.

To do so doesn't deprive them of their inspired status.

Sure, lots of things in the OT have been established by archaeology - the existence of the Hittites, for instance or the prevalence of the name 'Canaan' as Mudfrog indicates.

But plenty of other things haven't been - which doesn't mean that never will be, of course.

But I really can't see what's wrong with regarding parts of the OT as 'myth' in the C S Lewis sense. St Augustine of Hippo seems to have regarded the Genesis creation stories as allegorical to a certain extent - and St John Chrysostom doesn't seem to have been too bothered by apparent contradictions and discrepancies in the way that some contemporary 'inerrantists' are.

It's as if to admit or acknowledge that there are 'mythic' elements in there somehow undermines the whole thing. I can't see why that should be the case at all.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sorry, I meant 'adopt credulity' not 'suspend credulity' ...


 

---

Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

But I really can't see what's wrong with regarding parts of the OT as 'myth' in the C S Lewis sense. St Augustine of Hippo seems to have regarded the Genesis creation stories as allegorical to a certain extent - and St John Chrysostom doesn't seem to have been too bothered by apparent contradictions and discrepancies in the way that some contemporary 'inerrantists' are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think those who insist on a 6000 year old young earth are viewing Archbishop Ussher as being the inerrant one, not the Bible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
infallible in matters of historical fact

---

But as far as I can see, you have chosen a yardstick to decide what absolutely must be "historical fact" (1&2 Kings etc.) and what need not be (Jonah, and on the same standard, the Pentateuch, Esther and a lot more besides).

It's not an indefensible yardstick as such, but it is problematic inasmuch as it is not derived from the Bible itself.

If you are willing to apply an extrabiblical yardstick to decide what in the Bible is historical fact and what's not, I really don't see why you need to keep insisting the Bible is infalliable in matters of historical fact. Or indeed how you can.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Erm... isn't there quite a lot in the Bible that is explained or illuminated by extra-Biblical material?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, it's called tradition, or Tradition ...

Which then raises the question as to which traditions/Traditions are also 'infallible' or 'inerrant' if they are what we use to shed light on the scriptures and help us interpret them.

Who decides whether you or I or anyone else has the correct interpretation?
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Let me put this another way.

You don't believe the Bible to be infallible in matters of historical fact.

You believe those parts of the Bible that some scholarship has taught you must be accepted as historical fact to be infallible, and you accept the authority, probably of the same scholarship, when it tells you that some other parts of the Bible (such as Jonah) may legitimately be accepted as non-historical.

At the same time, you apparently reject other scholarship that might question the historicity of the parts you hold to be historical - and here's the crucial part - not because it disagrees with anything in the Bible, but because it disagrees with the scholarship you accept as authoritative.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes. What Eutychus says.

It strikes me that we are all of us selective as to what scholarship we reject and which we accept. The grounds for our doing aren't always as objective as we'd like to believe they are.
 

---

Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :
 
If it is not inerrant in all matters, how can it be said to be completely inerrant? And if it is inerrant only in matters of faith and doctrine, but does not provide an unequivocal key to what those matters of faith and doctrine should be, how can it give infallible guidance? Many people believe as a matter of faith that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are historical fact. Many people zealously believe as a matter of doctrine that God will condemn sinners to hell (see, e. g., Matthew 25:41), while other believe with equal zeal that Christ's atonement achieves the eventual salvation of all souls (1 Timothy 4:10).

I don't think it is a tenable claim to call it inerrant or infallible, but only on the points that I care about, and the rest don't matter. That position, it seems to me, implicitly acknowledges that it is in fact fallible on the points that are dismissed, and that fallibility is exactly why they are dismissed. If you need to sift through the text to distinguish what is enduringly meaningful and true from what should be ignored or denied, you are in effect treating the text as a whole as a blend of truth and error even if as a matter of doctrine you don't call it that. At that point the argument over whether to use adjectives such as "inerrant" or "infallible" becomes meaninglessly semantic.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
That's why I think it's far more constructive to talk in terms of inspiration rather than inerrancy or infallibility.

For one thing, the word is biblical

For another, it gets to the heart of whether one has a high regard for Scripture or not.

And for another, it opens up space, as I believe Scripture itself does, for the role of the Spirit and the importance of the interaction between the reader and the text.

I launched a discussion, now in Limbo, on the inspiration of interpretation not too long ago.
 

---

Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
That's why I think it's far more constructive to talk in terms of inspiration rather than inerrancy or infallibility.

For one thing, the word is biblical

For another, it gets to the heart of whether one has a high regard for Scripture or not.

And for another, it opens up space, as I believe Scripture itself does, for the role of the Spirit and the importance of the interaction between the reader and the text.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
One of the 'old chestnuts' levelled at the church is the 'many contradictions' in the Bible that somehow justify a total rejection of its integrity or claim to contain any truth.

What particular 'contradictions' do Shipmates consider might be seen as so damaging that they do, indeed, call into question the Bible's authenticity?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Let me put this another way.

You don't believe the Bible to be infallible in matters of historical fact.

You believe those parts of the Bible that some scholarship has taught you must be accepted as historical fact to be infallible, and you accept the authority, probably of the same scholarship, when it tells you that some other parts of the Bible (such as Jonah) may legitimately be accepted as non-historical.

At the same time, you apparently reject other scholarship that might question the historicity of the parts you hold to be historical - and here's the crucial part - not because it disagrees with anything in the Bible, but because it disagrees with the scholarship you accept as authoritative.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

I think it would make sense to take a single apparent contradiction and devote a thread to it. Then you can get good discussion going, and if necessary dive into the culture, history, language, or whatever else may underlie that particular confusion. Try to do it with all the issues at once, though, and I fear you'll simply get all the mockers.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0