The most significant contradiction or inconcistency?

[shnarkle]

There are no shortage of online sites providing numerous examples of contradictions and inconsistencies from the biblical texts. While some of these are quite simply the result of poor reading comprehension skills or an unfamiliarity with the texts, others seem legitimate. Many of those that are legitimate are inconsequential, but some could be quite controversial and may have significant ramifications.

Of all the contradictions found in scripture, which ones could prove to be most disturbing, or have the most serious ramifications for "believers"?


One that I think fits this bill is Paul's view on eating food sacrificed to false gods. He doesn't seem to have a problem with it if it doesn't have a negative effect over a fellow believer's faith. While I can see his point, and also agree that none of those pagan deities are real, I do wonder how he is able to disregard the law which he upholds; a law that forbids eating anything that is sacrificed to idols.

The reason this could be looked at as disturbing is because it indicates to me that Paul has attributed capriciousness to Paul's God.

[JehovahsWitness]

What do you think he was trying to communicate?

He is saying while there are many things and beings that people worship, there is one and only one true deity.

ok and how exactly in your opinion does what Thomas said to Jesus represent a contradiction of this point?

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 161 by JehovahsWitness]

Thomas is saying Jesus is that one true deity, contradicts with the idea that God the father is the one true deity.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 157 by Bust Nak]

All text is subject to interpretations, if two camps equally devoted to the text cannot agree on something as fundamental to Christian as salvation, you have a problem with the text.

It's odd that you would just naturally assume that the problem is with the text rather than with those who have presented their incorrect interpretations. You wouldn't come to this conclusion with regards to mathematics would you? For example: If two mathematicians can't agree on the answer to a mathematical proposition, it must be a problem with the proposition itself. If two evolutionary biologists can't come to an agreement as to a particular type of adaptation it must be a problem with the thoery of evolution itself. You can see how blatant this non sequitur is with regards to math and evolution, yet you have no problem assuming that it must be the text that is faulty when it comes to literature. These claims are in need of deductive proof. Evidence would be ideal.

[Goose]

All text is subject to interpretations, if two camps equally devoted to the text cannot agree on something as fundamental to Christian as salvation, you have a problem with the text.

No, we have a problem with one or both of the interpretations. Either one is false or both are. But it doesn’t follow that the text is necessarily therefore contradictory. You are fundamentally arguing a non-sequitur here. Surely you can see that.

I would say the plain reading of A contradicts plain reading of B. Forcing Christians to follow either A+B' or B+A' where the prime symbol denote an alterntive, less than intuitive interpretation.

You can say whatever you wish. And I will dismiss what you say as little more than an assertion until you show the texts themselves are contradictory.

Look, I can't even get (some of) you guys to accept plain old A and ~A style contradiction on a non-doctrinal point in the Bible.

An irrelvant rant.

Expecting us to come up with significant contradiction that fits your interpretation is a bit of a tough ask.

You say that like it's our fault that it's a tough task to come up with a significant contradiction. Look, if you guys can’t come up with a direct contradiction in the texts where there is the assertions that (A) and it’s negation, just say so.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 163 by shnarkle]

The problem is, there is ultimately one truth when it comes to math or evolution, observations may be wrong.

But when it comes to made up things, like works of art, poetry and works of fiction, like the Bible, the interpretations become a different kind, and your counter-argument is not the same.

Do you see?

[Bust Nak]

Thanks for providing two texts, but again the point isn't to just provide two texts. The point is to provide two texts that contradict each other. There is no contradiction here.

The first one says the Father is God, while the latter says Jesus is God. How is that not a contradiction?

The first text actually explains what is meant by the second text. Thomas is speaking to Christ who is the lord through whom all things came including Christ's own revelation of God, the Father. He explicitly states this

no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. Matthew 11:27

So Christ has revealed God to Thomas, and there is only one way to see the Father and that is through Christ the Lord. e.g.

Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. John 14:9

Merely revealing God to Thomas is quite the different claim to Thomas saying Jesus is God.

Not at all. I'm pointing out that the doctrine of the trinity isn't relevant The only thing that is relevant are the significant contradictions within the texts themselves.

Then why make a big fuss over the lack of example when you do know what text I was referring to?

What about it?

Those are further verses that expresses the idea of the Trinity.

No, there's no acknowledgment of a blatant contradiction. Blatant contradictions are silly, especially when they're assumed from concepts outsidse the texts themselves, but this isn't what is silly in the sentence. Blatant contradictions can be serious especially when they are infrerred from concepts that are outside the texts themselves. This is what is silly.

Ok, but why would you think the Trinity is anything other than a concept prescribed by the Bible?

I'm not a mind reader. Evidently I am the one who expected too much as no one seems able to provide even one set of contradictory texts; at least not one that is self evidently contradictory.

Would just any old contradiction do, even if not significant doctinally? What's wrong with the typical examples like whether you can see God or not?

[Bust Nak]

You may or may not have a "problem with the text" depending on ones philosophical position but you still don't have a contradiction; or rather at best you have a text which can be read as contradictory or not.

The contradictory reading is the plain reading though, it's not just interpetation but the injection of idea and argument seeking to reconcile a plain contradiction.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 148 by JehovahsWitness]

Quote:

1 CORINTHIANS 8:5-6 (ESV)
5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods� and many “lords�— 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.


Paul explained that the title or designation "Lord" or "God" is not exclusive and indeed many entities in "heaven or on earth" can be thus described. Then in verse [6] he says "for us there is one God, the Father" so evidently the writer is not saying there is one "god" but one that they (believers) recognize as their "Father" arguably the object of their adoration.

I don't think this passage needs to be considered beyond the fact that it is a simple elaboration of the Shema, and from that standpoint what is relevant are the "for and from whom" and "through whom" which are added. This erases all false interpretations, and makes Thomas' statement coherent. Thomas is aware that he cannot see the Father except through the Son from whom the Son came. For all practical purposes the Son is the Father in that he is the image of the Father. The image is the reflection of God, but the reflection isn't God. One is tempted to say "God himself", but this would be to contradict scripture which explicitly demands that one deny oneself. Jesus has a persona, or a self that can be denied, but the father can't have a persona as there is nothing to project except what can be projected through the person of Christ. This is why the doctrine of the trinity makes no sense. There can't be three persons as there is only one person, and that is the person of Christ.

[Bust Nak]

No, we have a problem with one or both of the interpretations. Either one is false or both are.

There is a third possibility, both are correct and the text is contradictory.

But it doesn’t follow that the text is necessarily therefore contradictory.

Again, what's stopping you from reading plain old A&~A as not necessarily contradictory?

You can say whatever you wish. And I will dismiss what you say as little more than an assertion until you show the texts themselves are contradictory.

How would you suggest I go about doing that without interpretations?

You say that like it's our fault that it's a tough task to come up with a significant contradiction. Look, if you guys can’t come up with a direct contradiction in the texts where there is the assertions that (A) and it’s negation, just say so.

You do see the difference between coming up with a significant contradiction and coming up with a significant contradictory interpretation acceptable to Christians, right? The fact that there are sizable camp of inconsistent doctrines shows we've achieved the former.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 161 by JehovahsWitness]

Thomas is saying Jesus is that one true deity, contradicts with the idea that God the father is the one true deity.

Really? did he say the word "one" did he say the word "true"? I think not. How much plain reading did you do? Do you realize that when you say your understanding and that understanding doesn not refer to the exact the words in the text, you are interpreting? Once there is room for your interpretation at least intellectually, surely you can see there is also room for an alternative interpretation.

Thomas did not say "You Jesus are the one true God" he did not say "I will not be worshipping the Father" is there even the word "worship" in the text? And even if all those words were in the second text, how is one man saying one thing that another states he doesn't believe a contradiction rather than two individuals making different choices? If a private investigator reports one woman slept with her husband while her neighbour slept with the milkman, is the report contradictory?

In short, one will have to interpret ones way into a "contradiction", which you have demonstrated is possible, if one is willing to "add" words and conclusions not explicitly stated therein. Left as is, the two texts may raise some questions but no more, they certainly don't qualify as "blantant contradictions" "significant" contradictions or if we're being brutally honest "contradctions" at all.