Apologetics of contradiction

[Difflugia]

There are absolutely no contradictions in the Bible. Nowhere does God ever contradict Himself.

When dismissing contradictions in the Bible, are there any apologetic arguments that are considered out of bounds or beyond the pale?

Are there any contradictions in the Qur'an, the Book of Mormon, or any other holy work that can't be reconciled even by biblical standards?

Or is it a case of, to misquote Syndrome from The Incredibles, when everyone's inerrant, no one is?

[SallyF]

There are absolutely no contradictions in the Bible. Nowhere does God ever contradict Himself.

When dismissing contradictions in the Bible, are there any apologetic arguments that are considered out of bounds or beyond the pale?

Are there any contradictions in the Qur'an, the Book of Mormon, or any other holy work that can't be reconciled even by biblical standards?

Or is it a case of, to misquote Syndrome from The Incredibles, when everyone's inerrant, no one is?

Firstly - there is no such thing as THE Bible.

Secondly - not a soul ever demonstrates that "God" is an "Himself".

Thirdly - not a soul ever demonstrates that so much as a verse of biblical writing came in any way, from any version of "God".

Fourthly - the human biblical writings are FULL of contradictions.


1000 CLEAR CONTRADICTIONS IN THE BIBLE

101 Clear

Contradictions in the Bible

by : Shabir Ally
Al-Attique Int’l Islamic Publications

Quran Recitation Page Lessons & Lectures The Right Way to Pray Books & Articles https://wardoons.wordpress.com/debate/


The study of inconsistencies in the Bible has a long history. In the 17th century, Spinoza considered the Bible to be, "...a book rich in contradictions."[38] In the 18th century, Thomas Paine in The Age of Reason compiled many of the Bible's self-contradictions. And in 1860, William Henry Burr produced a list of 144 self-contradictions in the Bible.[39] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_ ... _the_Bible

[Divine Insight]

There are absolutely no contradictions in the Bible. Nowhere does God ever contradict Himself.

The Bible is filled with contradictions. Far too many to even list.

Even by the 3rd chapter of Genesis the Bible had already made more than 3 contradictions.

God created a dog-eat-dog world and saw that it was "Good"?

God cursed Satan to crawl on his belly and eat dirt, yet this never even slowed Satan down?

Eve confessed to everything that happened including ratting on the evil Satan and she was still held in concept by God?

The Bible is nothing but a collection of contradictions from cover to cover.

I just pointed out 3 of them occurring within the first 3 Chapters of genesis. And I didn't even mention all the contradictions that occur in that short span of the text.

Adam and Eve could not have intentionally chosen to do an evil thing before they even had the knowledge of good and evil. That's yet another contradiction.

The Bible is a book of contradictions. There's no getting around that one.

Theists may as well surrender to this fact. It's futile to try to claim that there aren't any contradictions in the Bible. That's just plain silly.

[JehovahsWitness]

Are there any contradictions in the Qur'an, the Book of Mormon, or any other holy work that can't be reconciled even by biblical standards?

I dont know either book well enough to say, but most seeming "contradictions" can be resolved if we take the right approach because in general communication is neither precise or nor absolute enough to establish a "true" contradiction.



I FAUX CONTRADICTIONS

Is it physically impossible for BOTH to be true? A true contradiction presents two facts which are IMPOSSIBLE to harmonize. Often people site two apparently contractory facts which can in fact be harmonized.

To illustrate, one observer of a car accident says that the driver had a heart attack, another than he crashed and a third that he drowned. If however the indivdual was driving over a bridge, had a heart attack and crashing over the barrier, plummeted into the river below, drowning, all three statements can be true. A contradiction arises ONLY when one or more are physically impossible. For example, he drowned in London at 3pm on Friday and was burnt at the stake at 3:01 on the same day in Paris. The two statements are physically impossible to harmonize thus you have a "true" contradiction. *Since the bible rarely gives specific times of events, readers would be hard pushed to identify a contradiction of this nature. In short, most facts can be harmonized and no claim of contradiction can be thus made in their regard

Il LANGUAGE

• Bible Critics often have little or no understanding of the difficulties and limits of translating from one language to another and site a "contradiction" where in reality there is simply a difficulty in transposing ideas. For example the idea that an all powerful God has to "rest" does not take into account the fact that in Hebrew the word translated into the English "rest" can actually mean simply desist from a particular tast/work and be unrelated to fatique or lack of power. Such individuals also tend to have a very simplistic approach to language that is overwhelmingly literal so they see a "contradiction" where a basic knowledge of language would solve the *problem*.

III INTERPRETATIONAL CONCLUSIONS

• Some conclusions rely on highly subjective (and often contextually inaccurate) interpretation of facts. Thus a passage of God destroying someone = "God is cruel" contrasted with a verse him giving a blessing = "God is kind" and a self proclaimed "contradiction". This is like an observer seeing someone pick up something from a shop and walk out ("theif steals soap") and walk into another shop and paying for something ("thief pays for toothpaste") not taking into account that possibly the first incident wasn't theft but he paid for the item earlier, he owns the shop, he is the supplier ... or any other number of explanations. In short the person was not a "thief" at all and the contradiction based on a limited understanding of the circumstances.

IV TIME (CIRCUMSTANCE) SPECIFIC

• To illustrate A statement that says a man is a "good worker" and later a statement that he was a "dishonest worker" may be viewed as contradictory unless one takes into account the time period being referred to. The man may well have started out as a "good worker" in 1985 but have been eventually corrupted and convicted for a crime later in his career. In a similar vein, "Mary lives in London" "Mary does not live in London" (depends on what period is being referred to). If Mary lived in London from 1999-2003 but moved and then lived in New York from 2003-2008, we do not have a contradiction*.

  
  
  As well as needing to take into account the time a statement is made, WHO a statement is made to/about is also relevant. For example "Is God a man of peace or war?" Romans 15:33 says "The God of peace." but Exodus 15:3:"The Lord is a man of war. This apparent 'contradiction' is nothing of the sort since God can of course be BOTH depending on who he is interacting with.
  

  To illustrate: If President Trump identified himself as "a President of War", did this mean he would go to war against his own people? Would Americans fear after this statement that he would drop bombs on Washington or New York? Obviously he was refering to warring against his enemies. In a similar way God offers Peace to those that desire a peaceful relationship with him but is a 'God of War' to those that defy him and attack his people.

V A NOTE ON SCRIBAL (COPYIST) ERRORS

• The bible does contain a number of minor copyist errors meaning errors that have crept in that were not in the originals. These may give rise to seeming contradictions which can usually be resolved due to the duality of biblical narratives. In any case SCRIBAL errors cannot strictly be referred to as biblical errors as they do not reflect errors made by the author but by those that transmitted what the author wrote.

VI OUT & OUT LIES

• Unfortunately the some of the less reputable sites simply lie or misrepresent information in scripture? "inventing" contradictions by attributing actions, for example, to one individual that on closer examination, were in scripture attributed to two different people.

CONCLUSION True contradictions are in reality extremely hard to establish due to the open ended nature of most communication and the multitude of contextual information that may come into play. The bible is not exception and most, if not all so-called "biblical contraditions" actually fall into one or more of the above catagories.

RELATED POSTS

Does the bible contain "numerical contradictions"?
viewtopic.php?p=1016246#p1016246

Are biblical contradictions different from non--biblical ones?
viewtopic.php?p=1039968#p1039968

When is a contradiction not a contradiction ?
viewtopic.php?p=1016246#p1016246

Is the bible "inerrant"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 12#p985512

Are OMISSIONS contradictions [legion]?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 6#p1005966

viewtopic.php?p=336941#p336941

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

CONTRADICTIONS , SEQUENCING and ...EASTER CHALLENGES*

* harmonizing the resurrection narratives

[Divine Insight]

I dont know either book well enough to say, but most seeming "contradictions" can be resolved if we take the right approach because in general communication is neither precise or nor absolute enough to establish a "true" contradiction.

This is a ridiculous argument for theism because it's basically arguing that the Bible isn't precise enough to establish any truth.

I don't think any serious theist wants to make this argument.

[Difflugia]

Is it physically impossible for BOTH to be true? A true contradiction presents two facts which are IMPOSSIBLE to harmonize.

I'm not sure even "physically impossible" is the limit to an apologist's "IMPOSSIBLE." That's what I'm trying to figure out.

As an example, if one lines up Peter's denials of Jesus from all the Gospels, the second denial must be to someone that is both a woman and a man.

Matthew 26:71-72:

And when he was gone out into the porch, another [Greek feminine ἄλλη] saw him, and said to them that were there, "This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth." And again he denied with an oath, "I know not the man."

Mark 14:69-70:

And the maid saw him, and began again to say to them that stood by, "This is one of them." But he again denied it.

Luke 22:58:

And after a little while another saw him, and said, Thou also art one of them. But Peter said, "Man, I am not."

It's actually worse than it looks here, because in context, Mark's "the maid" is a second denial to the same person the first denial was made to. Matthew's "the other [woman]" is a different person. We can go the apologist route, though, and assume that the evangelists don't care if anyone understands what they write, so it's grammatically possible that Mark's "the maid" means someone different and we're looking for "IMPOSSIBLE."

Luke's second denial, however, is to a man.

So, when Jesus said "three denials," did he mean "at least three?" That's not what it says, but is it okay to change the actual meaning of the text in order to overcome the merely impossible? If that reasoning's acceptable, then it seems to me that "the Bible doesn't have any contradictions" is simply a doctrinal statement of faith on par with "God exists outside of time" rather than a proposition or challenge.

Saying that the Bible doesn't contradict itself is a statement about one's interpretation of Christianity, not about the Bible.

[JehovahsWitness]

I dont know either book well enough to say, but most seeming "contradictions" can be resolved if we take the right approach because in general communication is neither precise or nor absolute enough to establish a "true" contradiction.

This is a ridiculous argument for theism because it's basically arguing that the Bible isn't precise enough to establish any truth.

No I'm basically arguing that the bible is rarely precise enough to establish a contradiction. Truth is not dependent on establishing contradictions, a claim may possibly be disproved by a contradiction, but proving someone has a dog is not dependent on finding someone that says he didn't.



Logic,

JW

[JehovahsWitness]

Is it physically impossible for BOTH to be true? A true contradiction presents two facts which are IMPOSSIBLE to harmonize.

I'm not sure even "physically impossible" is the limit to an apologist's "IMPOSSIBLE." That's what I'm trying to figure out.

Yes maybe I shouldn't have said "physically" impossible, I should have maybe just have said "impossible" or "literally" impossible... no hum too late to edit now. (That said I think most critics are pointing to quantifiable (physical) elements "how many horses did Solomon have? 1,263 or 1,264?!).

[JehovahsWitness]

Your post is a good example of ERRORS: I, III and IV.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 252#999252

Peter was prophecied to make at least three denials but there is nothing in the text to limit the accusations to either three in total or the number or sex of the accuser(s). It seems there were several individuals of both sexes in the group. We dont know who is being highlighted by which gospel writer or in what order, but we can conclude that at least one of the accusers (probaby two) were girls.

None of the gospel writers precisely sequence who they are quoting (ie no mention the words "first", "second", "third" etc), so we can but speculatate as to the sex of whoever provoked Peter's "second denial", but one possible sequence can be seen below....



A likely possible sequence might be ...

Mark 14:69-70: DENIALS #1 & #2

And the maid saw him, and began again* to say to them that stood by, "This is one of them." But he again denied it.

* Apparenly the same accuser, with at least her second accusation.

Matthew 26:71-72: DENIALS #1 & #2

And when he was gone out into the porch, another [Greek feminine ἄλλη] saw him, and said to them that were there, "This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth." And again he denied with an oath, "I know not the man."

Luke 22:58, 59: DENIALS #2 & #3

And after a little while another [person in the group] saw him, and said, Thou also art one of them. But Peter said, "Man, I am not." ...{Verse 59} another [man]

Of course Peter could have been blurting denials out at a rate of watts and denied Jesus 12 times, the point being there is nothing that makes HARMONIZATION of the accounts impossible, since nobody limited how many people spoke to Peter on that night


JW

[Difflugia]

Your post is a good example of ERRORS: I, III and IV.

An apologist's willingness to change the meaning of a text hardly constitutes an error (or three errors) on my part.

Peter made just three denials but there is nothing in the text to limit the accusations to either three in total or the number or sex of the accuser(s).

"Nothing in the text" is an interesting way of phrasing that since you seem to be claiming that where inerrancy is concerned, there's no such thing as context. Even verses that any reasonable person would read as a dialogue must instead be treated as a series of disconnected monologues. Is that what you're saying? Is that what you believe? I think I can safely say without hyperbole that nobody would consider that to be a valid hermeneutic for anything other than rescuing inerrancy. Most people wouldn't even then.

Even a reading that narrow doesn't save you or the Bible, though. Even if we have to treat every statement as though it stands on its own, the denials still can't be harmonized. Each denial in Luke is addressed to its own single individual by a preface of "Woman," "Man," and "Man" respectively. Mark's third denial is not addressed to an individual, though. In Mark 14:71, Peter uses the plural form of "you" (which is "ye" in the King James Bible) and so can't be addressed to an individual. None of Luke's denials are addressed to a plurality, so Luke and Mark together describe no fewer than four denials.

None of the gospel writers precisely sequence who they are quoting (ie no mention the words "first", "second", "third" etc)

Look closer. All three Synoptics unambiguously describe the exact sequence. Following the first denial, Mark and Matthew use "again" and then "after a little while" to mark the sequence (Mk 14:70, Mt 26:72-73). Luke uses "after a bit" and then "after about one hour" (Lk 22:58-59).