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?

[Goose]

[Replying to post 26 by Goose]

14 ≠ 18

That's the implied contradiction you are arguing for but that's not an explicit logical contradiction such that A and ~A.

So you must have some underlying assumptions here. What are they? And why are they the case?

14 is not 18. That's not an 'implication,' that is a fact.

I’m with you so far, 14 does not equal 18.

The bible asserts both that there were 18 generations from David to Jeconiah (in Chronicles and Kings) and that there were not 18 generations from David to Jeconiah (in Matthew).

Patently false. Chronicles and Kings make no assertion that “there were 18 generations from David to Jeconiah.� Nor does Matthew make the assertion that “there were not 18 generations from David to Jeconiah.� You made that bit up. You did a little head count thingy for Chronicles and inferred 18 generations. Same kind of reasoning Young Earth Creationists use to infer the earth is only 6,000 years old, by the way. Then you quoted Matthew out of context and juxtaposed him with Chronicles. Standard fare for the Bible Is Full of Contradictions crowd, I suppose. But Matthew does not at all negate “18 generations� or anything in the Hebrew scriptures. Matthew says nothing about 18 generations nor does he even reference Chronicles or Kings here. Matthew was asserting the genealogy he had given (1:6-11) from David to the deportation to Babylon totaled fourteen generations.

2 Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers. 3 Judah was the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, Perez was the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Ram. 4 Ram was the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon. 5 Salmon was the father of Boaz by Rahab, Boaz was the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse. 6 Jesse was the father of David the king.

David was the father of Solomon by Bathsheba who had been the wife of Uriah. 7 Solomon was the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asa. 8 Asa was the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah. 9 Uzziah was the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezekiah. 10 Hezekiah was the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, and Amon the father of Josiah. 11 Josiah became the father of Jeconiah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.

12 After the deportation to Babylon: Jeconiah became the father of Shealtiel, and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel. 13 Zerubbabel was the father of Abihud, Abihud the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim the father of Azor. 14 Azor was the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud. 15 Eliud was the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob. 16 Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called [p]the Messiah.

17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to [q]the Messiah, fourteen generations. – Matthew 1: 2-17

Now, you could certainly argue the genealogies between Matthew and Chronicles are different. That raises the interesting question, why are these genealogies different? Why does Matthew omit Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah? What significance does Matthew intend to imply by segmenting three sets of fourteen generations? But what cannot be argued here is an explicit logical contradiction such that A and ~A. It’s just not there in the text. And that’s what I said I would consider beyond rational justification. I asked to see a case of A and ~A. You didn't show that.

This is a direct and obvious logical contradiction;...

No, it isn’t. It’s certainly not what I said I would consider beyond rational justification, a logical contradiction such that A and ~A.

...pretending that you can entertain the idea that 14 equals 18 is hardly a viable response.

I wasn’t pretending 14 equals 18.

Who nominated this guy for "best debater" amiright?

Just stick to the arguments, Mithrae.

[Mithrae]

The bible asserts both that there were 18 generations from David to Jeconiah (in Chronicles and Kings) and that there were not 18 generations from David to Jeconiah (in Matthew).

Patently false. Chronicles and Kings make no assertion that “there were 18 generations from David to Jeconiah.�

According to the Tanakh, how many generations were there from David to his descendant Jeconiah?

Jehovah's Witness decided not to answer that question when asked, presumably because the obvious and unequivocal answer is that “there were 18 generations from David to Jeconiah.� (Or nineteen if we include David himself.) Any other answer would quite simply be dishonest.

You did a little head count thingy for Chronicles and inferred 18 generations. Same kind of reasoning Young Earth Creationists use to infer the earth is only 6,000 years old, by the way.

While I think they're patently wrong to adopt a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-4 (and even allowing that, for those who want to 'harmonize' literalism with science arguably wrong to assume that 'the fall' happened immediately after creation) they are certainly correct that given such a literal interpretation, 'the fall' would have occurred about 6,000 years ago. And therefore according to modern archaeological knowledge Genesis read literally is simply wrong. There's no wriggle room there, we're told exactly how old each pre-Abrahamic patriarch was when they fathered their relevant son; there's no chance that "Arphaxad lived thirty-five years and begot Salah, and after he begot Salah he lived four hundred and three years" somehow 'really' means that "after an indeterminate length of time, Salah was born in the lineage of Arphaxad." Even if we adopted the dubious supposition that 'begot' in these cases means 'had a descendant born to their lineage' it wouldn't change the timeframes specified for each descendant's birth.

It's a strange comparison to raise, really: You may not like the literal falsehood of these Genesis genealogies, but that doesn't change the facts. Similarly in the case of David's lineage, we might introduce baseless speculation about additional generations (though the historical timeframe leaves little or no room for such) but that there were 'at least' 18 generations is beyond any kind of rational or honest discussion.

Nor does Matthew make the assertion that “there were not 18 generations from David to Jeconiah.� You made that bit up. . . . Matthew was asserting the genealogy he had given (1:6-11) from David to the deportation to Babylon totaled fourteen generations.

No, you are simply making things up. He explicitly asserts that "all the generations... from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generations." The generations from David to Jeconiah, not "the names on my list."

That raises the interesting question, why are these genealogies different? Why does Matthew omit Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah?

Those immediate ancestors of Uzziah are arguably the least memorable names in the genealogy; it's much easier to remember the beginning and end of a list (eg. the sons of Judah and Solomon, the fathers of Abraham and David) than all the names in the middle. Uzziah (and his immediate heirs) are cited in Isaiah 1:1, Hosea 1:1, Amos 1:1 and Zechariah 14:5 and therefore much more memorable than his immediate ancestors. Furthermore Uzziah is known in some passages as Azariah, easily confused with and therefore potentially overshadowing Ahaziah and Amaziah.

'Matthew' also omits Jehoiakim, the father of a king most commonly known as Jehoiachin (15 times in the Tanakh, in four books) rather than Jeconiah (7 times in three books); again, a potential confusion making the omission easier to overlook, as you did.

Thirdly, whereas the 14 generations from Abraham to David include both Abraham and David and the 14 generations from Jeconiah to Jesus include both Jeconiah and Jesus, a consistent approach to the middle section would yield fifteen generations; instead the count of 14 generations from David to Jeconiah must begin with Solomon rather than David. Again, something unlikely to be noticed from casual reading.

So while it's rather speculative, should we assume it is merely coincidence that all three adjustments required to get his magic number 14 can be plausibly understood as the ones most likely to go unnoticed?

If someone explained why Jesus is called the 'lion of Judah' by saying that "Jesus is the son of David, who is the son of Judah" as a shorthand alternative to a full genealogy, that would not be dishonest or false. But that's obviously not what Matthew's done. If they listed a full genealogy but omitted one or two 'unmentionables,' it may be false but I probably still wouldn't consider it dishonest. But again that's obviously not what the author did - he included Judah's most notoriously wicked and long-reigning king Manasseh, for example, while excluding the relatively good king Joash.

Heck, even verses 7 to 11 as they stand - despite the apparent duplicity in the choice to make adjustments most likely to go unnoticed - could be argued (albeit very dubiously) to not constitute a 'direct contradiction,' however false it would still be. But when the author declares that all the generations from David to the exile are 14 generations, that is a direct, explicit and irredeemable contradiction of the Tankah's information.

[otseng]

Who nominated this guy for "best debater" amiright?

Moderator Comment

Yeah, he might've been nominated. But, that doesn't mean it's allowed to use that to make an indirect attack on him.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Difflugia]

It may be possible that the authors meant something else, but I think it's very, very improbable.

That you happen to think another meaning is very improbable is irrelevant.

This right here is the crux of inerrancy apologetics (and creationism, for that matter). It's all you've got.

Natural language isn't symbolic logic, so I'll narrow the premises a bit. What Mark almost certainly meant contradicts what Matthew almost certainly meant. What Matthew almost certainly meant contradicts what Luke almost certainly meant.

But a plain reading of the author’s words doesn’t get you a logical contradiction such that A and ~A. I showed that.

No, you've shown that a contrived reading doesn't get you a logical contradiction.

So your end game is taking down apologists who push your button. That's going after some low hanging fruit, bro.

I made a good faith effort to answer your question and this is all you took from it? Maybe read it again.

[Goose]

The bible asserts both that there were 18 generations from David to Jeconiah (in Chronicles and Kings) and that there were not 18 generations from David to Jeconiah (in Matthew).

Patently false. Chronicles and Kings make no assertion that “there were 18 generations from David to Jeconiah.�

According to the Tanakh, how many generations were there from David to his descendant Jeconiah?

The Tanakh makes no explicit claim as to the number of generations from David to Jeconiah. It certainly is not the case that “The bible asserts both that there were 18 generations from David to Jeconiah (in Chronicles and Kings)...� as you claimed it does.

According to you there were eighteen generations. You made some starting assumptions about the intention of the author, then you inferred eighteen generations by counting heads.

Jehovah's Witness decided not to answer that question when asked...

He doesn’t need to, nor do I. The question itself doesn’t prove your premise that, “The bible asserts both that there were 18 generations from David to Jeconiah (in Chronicles and Kings)...�

...presumably because the obvious and unequivocal answer is that “there were 18 generations from David to Jeconiah.� (Or nineteen if we include David himself.) Any other answer would quite simply be dishonest.

The unequivocal and honest answer is that the Tanakh makes no explicit claim as to the number of generations.

But for the sake of argument, given the starting assumption that Chronicles 3 intended to record a complete and exhaustive genealogy it implies there were 18 generations from David to Jeconiah.

Now, even given that implication do you have an explicit contradiction such that A and ~A between Chronicles 3 and Matthew 1?

No, you don’t.

Nor does Matthew make the assertion that “there were not 18 generations from David to Jeconiah.� You made that bit up. . . . Matthew was asserting the genealogy he had given (1:6-11) from David to the deportation to Babylon totaled fourteen generations.

No, you are simply making things up.

Look, you claimed, “The bible asserts...that there were not 18 generations from David to Jeconiah (in Matthew).� There is no such assertion in Matthew, whatsoever.

[Matthew] explicitly asserts that "all the generations... from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generations." The generations from David to Jeconiah, not "the names on my list."

Uh but once again taking Matthew out of context. I notice two things here. Firstly, you conveniently snipped out "So" at the beginning of the statement in the quote from Matthew. The full quote is...

�So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations.� – Matthew 1:17

The word Matthew uses at the beginning of this statement is the conjunction οὖν which has the meaning therefore, then, so. It implies what is about to be said follows from what was said. And this is significant because it shows Matthew is quite clearly making a summary of the aforementioned three sets of genealogies he has given in the preceding verses (1:2-16). By removing this word, you change the context of 1:17 entirely. If Matthew is referring to his own list he’s not referring to Chronicles.

The second thing I notice is you don’t demand an explicit statement from Chronicles 3 such as "here are the 18 generations." No, in the case of Chronicles an implication is sufficient. However, when it comes to Matthew you demand an explicit statement along the lines "the names on my list" even though he strongly implies he’s referring to the names on his list. That’s an inconsistent application of methodology done with the intention of trying to manufacture a contradiction.

The bottom line here is this just simply is not an explicit logical contradiction such that A and ~A no matter how you try to spin it.

As for it being an implied contradiction. I don’t think you are quite there either. It seems to me the key underlying assumption is this one…

If someone explained why Jesus is called the 'lion of Judah' by saying that "Jesus is the son of David, who is the son of Judah" as a shorthand alternative to a full genealogy, that would not be dishonest or false. But that's obviously not what Matthew's done. If they listed a full genealogy but omitted one or two 'unmentionables,' it may be false but I probably still wouldn't consider it dishonest. But again that's obviously not what the author did - he included Judah's most notoriously wicked and long-reigning king Manasseh, for example, while excluding the relatively good king Joash.

Your underlying assumption here seems to be that Matthew’s primary intention was to give an exhaustive and full genealogy. I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. Jewish genealogies were sometimes recorded with names omitted and it doesn’t seem as though they thought this was some kind of contradiction. Compare the genealogy of Ezra 7:3-4 with 1 Chronicles 6:6-10 where there are several names missing from Ezra.

�Now after these things, in the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, there went up Ezra son of Seraiah, son of Azariah, son of Hilkiah, 2 son of Shallum, son of Zadok, son of Ahitub, 3 son of Amariah, son of Azariah, son of Meraioth, 4 son of Zerahiah, son of Uzzi, son of Bukki, 5 son of Abishua, son of Phinehas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the chief priest.�Ezra 7:3-4

� 6 and Uzzi became the father of Zerahiah, and Zerahiah became the father of Meraioth, 7 Meraioth became the father of Amariah, and Amariah became the father of Ahitub, 8 and Ahitub became the father of Zadok, and Zadok became the father of Ahimaaz, 9 and Ahimaaz became the father of Azariah, and Azariah became the father of Johanan, 10 and Johanan became the father of Azariah (it was he who served as the priest in the house which Solomon built in Jerusalem) � - 1 Chronicles 6: 6-10

Couple the above with Matthew’s clear intention to make some kind of deeper theological point (again not unprecedented in Jewish genealogies) by creating three groups of fourteen generations there seems to be little basis for thinking this was meant to be a taken as an exhaustive and full genealogy. Clearly Matthew put this genealogy in his gospel to make a point which went beyond the straightforward purpose of recording a genealogy for the sake of recording a genealogy. This becomes more acute when we consider Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience who would have very likely already been aware of these genealogies (or at least would have access to them).

But for the sake of argument let’s grant your argument and say Matthew was intending to write a full and exhaustive genealogy but missed a few names thereby made an error in his genealogy. This seems to me to be such a minor error in comparison to how many names he got right (14 out of 18 is 78%) that I have to ask, what’s the point of pressing this “contradiction� so hard? It seems to me the only point amounts to no more than an attempt to scrounge up a counter example, no matter how trivial it may be, in order to falsify the doctrine of inerrancy. Is that your end game as well?

[Goose]

It may be possible that the authors meant something else, but I think it's very, very improbable.

That you happen to think another meaning is very improbable is irrelevant.

This right here is the crux of inerrancy apologetics (and creationism, for that matter).

Over here, Diffigula. The crux of the matter is that you haven’t been able to prove the explicit logical contradiction you said you thought was there in the Petrine denials. And I’ve shown how your underlying assumptions are not necessarily the case.

As an aside, what is with this fixation on inerrancy anyway? I said preserving inerrancy has nothing to do with it for me and here you are once again talking about “inerrancy apologetics.� The irony here is I don’t even hold to the doctrine of inerrancy because I don’t think it necessary. But I guess if I don’t agree with your arguments that a particular case is a logical contradiction I must be an “inerrancy apologist,� huh? I entered this thread because you were asking what is unjustifiable when it comes to addressing contradictions and I made the assumption, wrongly apparently, that when you said contradiction you meant a logical contradiction as opposed to the standard trivial discrepancies often cited. I stated in my first post what I thought was beyond rational justification asked if there were any logical contradictions in the Bible along those lines because if there are, that implies something in the Bible is false. If something in the Bible is false, I want to know about it. But so far this thread seems to be more of a rant on inerrancy than anything really meaningful.

It's all you've got.

Don’t forget I’ve got logic too. And it seems all you’ve got is an assertion that your personal opinion that the authors meant anything other than what you think they meant is very improbable. That’s not much of a counter argument.

Natural language isn't symbolic logic, so I'll narrow the premises a bit.

But it can be easily translated.

A^~A
A and not A
Bob is a dog and Bob is not a dog.

The language available to the writers under question had the capacity to negate a proposition. μη� and ο�.

What Mark almost certainly meant contradicts what Matthew almost certainly meant. What Matthew almost certainly meant contradicts what Luke almost certainly meant.

But your “narrowing� of the premises doesn’t change anything. How are you getting a logical contradiction such that A and ~A with your amended premises? Because that was what you said you think the Petrine denials show.

But a plain reading of the author’s words doesn’t get you a logical contradiction such that A and ~A. I showed that.

No, you've shown that a contrived reading doesn't get you a logical contradiction.

Then go ahead and show how your reading gets you A and ~A.

So your end game is taking down apologists who push your button. That's going after some low hanging fruit, bro.

I made a good faith effort to answer your question and this is all you took from it? Maybe read it again.

That’s what I’ve taken from the totality of your posts in this thread. I think I’ve nailed it.

[Mithrae]

But for the sake of argument let’s grant your argument and say Matthew was intending to write a full and exhaustive genealogy but missed a few names thereby made an error in his genealogy. This seems to me to be such a minor error in comparison to how many names he got right (14 out of 18 is 78%) that I have to ask, what’s the point of pressing this “contradiction� so hard? It seems to me the only point amounts to no more than an attempt to scrounge up a counter example, no matter how trivial it may be, in order to falsify the doctrine of inerrancy. Is that your end game as well?

As when you and I spent many pages discussing whether "none of you can be my disciple if he does not renounce all his own possessions" 'really means' that all would-be followers of Jesus must renounce their possessions, or when you insisted for several pages that civilian casualties in the Allied bombing of Dresden are equivalent to aggressively attacking entire ethnic groups determined to kill every many, woman and child among them (that either both are genocide or neither is, that they are fundamentally equivalent), it's a discussion which holds a certain fascination for its own sake: The lengths people will go to in order to persuade themselves and protect themselves against any critique of their beliefs, however valid.

But since that phenomenon is obviously nothing new to me (or any of our readers, I'm sure), after a couple of posts about Matthew's genealogy with both JW and BJS I tried to bring their attention back to Difflugia's original point: Accepting the apparent impossibility of some folk ever acknowledging an error in their Book, what happens when we apply those 'standards' more generally? Neither JW nor BJS were willing to continue that discussion, but perhaps you will.

If someone says that there are 14 miles from New York to Los Angeles that's not incorrect; they're just talking about certain particular miles which they find interesting, right? By the criteria being applied to the bible there is literally nothing which could be said to contain errors. You're making a big fuss about text explicitly containing A and ~A in formal logical terms, but of course even those examples will not be acknowledged - surely one of the passages must be "figurative" or "hyperbole" or mean something "in a different sense."

• "with God all things are possible (dynatos)" ~ Matthew 19:26, Mark 10:27
  "it is impossible (adynatos) for God to lie" ~ Hebrews 6:18
  
  "there is no god besides me" ~ Deut. 32:39, Isaiah 44:6
  "there is one god" ~ 1 Timothy 2:5
  "indeed there are many gods" ~ 1 Corinthians 8:5
  
  "No one has seen God at any time" ~ John 1:18, 1 Timothy 6:16
  "Then I will take away My hand, and you shall see My back; but My face shall not be seen." ~ Exodus 33:23
  
  "But He said, “You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live.�" ~ Exodus 33:20
  "So the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend" ~ Exodus 33:10
  "I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved" ~ Genesis 32:30
  "But since then there has not arisen in Israel a prophet like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face" ~ Deuteronomy 34:10

But whereas those direct contradictions really are quite trivial - presumably either the author of Hebrews or Jesus simply misspoke, for example - the direct contradiction of Matthew's claim that all the generations from David to the exile are 14 generations against the Tanakh's record that in fact there were 19 is not a simple mistake but rather a direct manipulation of the facts for theological ends. It's obvious, as both you and BJS have agreed, that this magic number 14 was intended to make a theological point, so this 'error' is not simply a mistake; rather the three adjustments made by Matthew, all plausibly understood as those most likely to go unnoticed by a casual reader, are a case of complete disregard for truth and fact (an ongoing pattern throughout the gospel with the invented massacre of the innocents, false prophecies of Jesus returning before Israel had been evangelized, mass resurrection on Good Friday and so on).

Obviously, and again as I pointed out to both JW and BJS, an ardent defense of Matthew's false claims about literal content as nevertheless somehow being valid would imply that any literal content in the bible for which there is some reason to question veracity could be legitimately presumed to be literally false... yet still some kind of valid "theological point." Such absurd defenses of biblical contradictions, taken seriously, would not only mean that everything in the whole world is inerrant but also that 'truth' becomes all but meaningless.

The second thing I notice is you don’t demand an explicit statement from Chronicles 3 such as "here are the 18 generations." No, in the case of Chronicles an implication is sufficient. However, when it comes to Matthew you demand an explicit statement along the lines "the names on my list" even though he strongly implies he’s referring to the names on his list. That’s an inconsistent application of methodology done with the intention of trying to manufacture a contradiction.

You're the one who introduced a supposed distinction between the names Matthew wrote and the actual historical lineage of David (as did BJS of course). I think it's a rather contrived distinction, an appeal to technicality, but indeed technically Matthew's text is not the same thing as the actual lineage of David: So fine, I'm simply pointing out that if you want to introduce that distinction, it makes no difference whatseover - 'Matthew' explicitly asserts that he is referring to "the generations from David to the deportation to Babylon"... not the names on his list.

[JehovahsWitness]

By the criteria being applied to the bible there is literally nothing which could be said to contain errors.

Most in this thread are not discussing "biblical errors" but but absolute contradictions. Since language is fluid, words often carry different meanings depending on context and people rarely if ever speak in absolutes, it's not a matter of special pleading, it's a matter of accepting the limitations of language.

"there is no god besides me" ~ Deut. 32:39, Isaiah 44:6
"there is one god" ~ 1 Timothy 2:5
"indeed there are many gods" ~ 1 Corinthians 8:5

Let's take the definition of GOD as proposed by Merriam-Websters to illustrate
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god

GOD

1. the supreme or ultimate reality

2 less commonly God : a being or object that is worshipped as having more than natural attributes and powers

3: a person or thing of supreme value

4: a powerful ruler

Four different meanings to the same word. Why should one insist that only one meaning is being used in scripture but that the word can be used in different ways everywhere else?

"there is no god besides me" ~ Deut. 32:39, Isaiah 44:6 (definition #1)
"there is one god" ~ 1 Timothy 2:5 (definition #1)
"indeed there are many gods" ~ 1 Corinthians 8:5 (definition #2 / #3)

I sympathize with those that insist on dogmatic literalism and therefore see contradictions lurking under every rock, but that doesn't mean I want them teaching literature to my children.

JW



RELATED POSTS

God, gods, and false gods in Scripture (tiggerr2)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 313#868313

How can we reconcile the fact that Isaiah 43 has YHWH declaring himself "alone" savior with the fact that the title savior is also attributed to Jesus?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 303#912303

Did Moses see God?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 226#867226

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 78 by JehovahsWitness]

As I said, Goose was making a big fuss about text explicitly containing A and ~A in formal logical terms, but of course even those examples will not be acknowledged - surely one of the passages must be "figurative" or "hyperbole" or mean something "in a different sense." We find passages saying both that there is only one god and that there is not only one god but, oh no, they don't all mean god in the same sense; passages saying both everything is possible for God and not everything is possible with god, but of course we must suppose they're talking about a different kind of possibility, right?

While three of those examples I gave are pretty solid, I agree that in this case they reaaly are talking about 'god' in a different sense: But the point holds true even in thise case that Goose's fixation on A and ~A is an arbitrary/meaningless goalpost when the all-too-predictable response that "not A is using A in a different snse" lingers always on the horizon.

[JehovahsWitness]

We find passages saying both that there is only one god and that there is not only one god but, oh no, they don't all mean god in the same sense

Yes that is exactly my point. Indeed all the examples you provided are dependent on imposing a particularly narrow and often literal meaning on the passages, and this sometimes in direct conflict with the context (and in the case of Matthews 14 generations) to the actual words in the text. You may insist as much as you like but the language of the bible is simply not explicit enough to establish many real contradictions (and any apparent contradictions are more often than not the result of copies errors and most inconsequential).

At the very least an unbias examination of most scriptures has to acknowledge different readings are possible, as displeasing as this might be to some.

Respect,


JW