Contradictions & Inconsistencies

[Inigo Montoya]

Grant, for the sake of this topic, there are no contradictions or inconsistencies in the Bible.



Given the above, are the claims made in the Bible any more or any less likely to be true?

[Bust Nak]

Grant, for the sake of this topic, there are no contradictions or inconsistencies in the Bible.



Given the above, are the claims made in the Bible any more or any less likely to be true?

More likely to be true relative to what exactly? More likely to be true than a Bible with contradictions and inconsistencies? If so then it is at least as likely to be true.

[FWI]

[Replying to post 10 by Divine Insight]

Divine Insight commented:

So then the Bible itself confesses to be a pack of lies?

For the most part that is what my post states. However, you surely did expand the context with your statement: pack of lies. This was not stated or was it the intent of my post. Yet, it does show that there are certain individuals and groups, which are eager to discredit the entire bible, without any real evidence. This reality is also clearly stated in the bible and these men/women are labeled as dissenters. The point of the post was to show that we cannot worship a book or use it as an idol, because we could be misled.

How do Christians deal with the fact that the Bible is filled with lies by its own proclamation?

Again, you are misrepresenting my comments with the statement: filled with lies. This was not implied in the bible verses or my comments to Inigo Montoya and I reject your attempt in trying to mislead others about my intent.

Therefore, Christians should be aware that the bible claims deceitful men/woman will introduce philosophical and deceitful ways, which comes from the traditions of men and are based on the principles of the world's ways and not according to the instructions of the Christ and that some of these individuals have had control of what was included in the bible.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 11 by Bust Nak]

Indeed I agree it would be at least as likely to be true. But do the claims' chances of being true INCREASE if there are no contradictions or inconsistencies?

I should have added authorship to the OP. I contend none of these efforts increase the claims' likelihood of being true.

To expand somewhat, and because I dislike working while at work, here's what I mean.

My uncle Harvey swears to this day he met and spoke with God in the Montana wilderness after a botched elk hunt. Everyone in this town has heard the story. He wrote two pieces on it for the paper as well.

Of course I've heard it repeatedly since I was a boy.

Now, knowing who the original author was (Harv), and in what year he wrote the accounts (1977), and confirming there are no contradictions or inconsistencies in his account of the events, does the likelihood of this event having actually occurred increase when he tells it versus one of the town folk? What happens to the chances of it being true if I tell it instead? Or my cousin? Or the mayor?

What is the correlation between a supernatural claim being true and knowing who the person is telling it, knowing when they did so, and whether or not the story is consistent?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 10 by Divine Insight]

Divine Insight commented:

So then the Bible itself confesses to be a pack of lies?

For the most part that is what my post states. However, you surely did expand the context with your statement: pack of lies. This was not stated or was it the intent of my post. Yet, it does show that there are certain individuals and groups, which are eager to discredit the entire bible, without any real evidence. This reality is also clearly stated in the bible and these men/women are labeled as dissenters. The point of the post was to show that we cannot worship a book or use it as an idol, because we could be misled.

How do Christians deal with the fact that the Bible is filled with lies by its own proclamation?

Again, you are misrepresenting my comments with the statement: filled with lies. This was not implied in the bible verses or my comments to Inigo Montoya and I reject your attempt in trying to mislead others about my intent.

Therefore, Christians should be aware that the bible claims deceitful men/woman will introduce philosophical and deceitful ways, which comes from the traditions of men and are based on the principles of the world's ways and not according to the instructions of the Christ and that some of these individuals have had control of what was included in the bible.

Whether you realize it or not, this is a MAJOR PROBLEM for Christian theology. The reason being that Christian theology is entirely dependent upon the Bible as it's source of knowledge of God.

Therefore if the Bible itself proclaims that there are any falsehoods in the Bible, then this does indeed render the entire Bible as totally untrustworthy and undependable.

Why?

Well, because who is then to say which parts of the Bible can be trusted and which parts cannot be trusted?

If the reader has to be the one to decide, then morality becomes nothing more than the opinion of the reader.

Some readers will reject some parts of the Bible as being false, whilst other will reject other parts. And neither reader can lay claim to having the "truth".

If I need to PUSH my own personal sense of morality onto the Bible in order to decide which parts seem to me like they came from a God and which parts seem to me to have not come from any God. Then this necessarily requires that whatever results from that endeavor reflects "My Personal Moral Compass" and not the moral decrees of any God.

If you need to decide which parts of the Bible represent what you believe to be moral, and reject the parts that you feel are not moral. They your morality originates entirely from your own personal opinions.

In fact, as far as I'm concerned this is precisely what ALL Christian theists necessarily do. They really have no choice but to PUSH their own personal sense of morality onto the Bible and reject the parts of the Bible that they personally don't agree with in terms of moral credibility.

Therefore all Christian necessarily create their own moral compass. And it shows in that they cannot agree with each other on every moral issue.

~~~~~~

Just for the record, I feel the following explanation is in order:

I actually agree that all human morality is indeed nothing other than personal subjective opinions. I actually have no problem with this because I don't see any evidence for any absolute morality anyway. Relative moral opinions are all that are necessarily in this life as far as I am concerned.

Now you may wonder then why I would complain that Christians are all necessarily expressing their own personal subjective moral opinions since this is all that I believe exists to begin with.

Well, the difference is that a Secularist will at least own up to the fact that their moral values are indeed a personal subjective opinion. Whereas the problem with Christianity is that it causes Christians to hold their personal subjective moral opinions out as having somehow been approved of, (or have actually come from) some God.

So no. There is no room for any errors, or falsehoods in the entire Bible. If the Bible contains any claims that God supposedly commanded, directed, or did something that God did not command, direct, or do, then this renders the entire collection of scriptures totally untrustworthy and therefore utterly useless in terms of trying to figure out what some God supposedly expects from humans.

So yeah, any falsehoods contained in the Bible render the entire canon utterly worthless. Because there would then be no way of deciding which parts came from God and which parts are the lies.

So once you've confessed that the Bible contains lies written by men, then you have just proclaimed the entire Bible to be utterly worthless whether you realize it or not.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 12 by FWI]


Don't forget also FWI, that the New Testament has Jesus proclaiming that every jot and tittle of the law shall not pass.

Therefore Jesus does not allow for there to be any errors in the Biblical laws.

Unless of course you are going to suggest that the stories of Jesus themselves are the "lies".

In fact, that's a really great point too. If the Bible contains lies then how can we be sure that the claims made by, and about, Jesus are not also lies?

A Bible that contains lies is in grave trouble.

This is why I actually agree with the hardcore fundamentalists. They hold that the Bible must necessarily be inerrant (and for good reason!)

I agree, if the Bible described the commandments, directives, and demands of a God, it cannot afford to contain any fallacies at all.

Where I disagree with the fundamentalists is on the idea that the Bible actually is inerrant and is therefore the precise truthful "Word of God".

In short, I agree that "IF the Bible is the word of God it necessarily must be inerrant". But I disagree that it makes any sense to believe that it is inerrant. Therefore my conclusion is simple: The Bible is clearly not the word of any God. Period.

Hardcore Fundamentalist would agree with me. They simply disagree that the Bible is errant. They claim that every word of it must be true, and have come from God.

[liamconnor]

Grant, for the sake of this topic, there are no contradictions or inconsistencies in the Bible.



Given the above, are the claims made in the Bible any more or any less likely to be true?

The question is far too vague. By "contradiction", do we mean "contradictions within itself"? Obviously that does not secure a book's historical veracity: fictions may be free of internal contradictions; but they remain fictions (i.e., they "contradict" known historical facts).

If what is meant is "contradictions with known history, undisputed philosophy, and verifiable science"; well, then yes, the claims of the Bible would be beyond dispute if did not contradict any of these.

[Inigo Montoya]

Grant, for the sake of this topic, there are no contradictions or inconsistencies in the Bible.



Given the above, are the claims made in the Bible any more or any less likely to be true?

The question is far too vague. By "contradiction", do we mean "contradictions within itself"? Obviously that does not secure a book's historical veracity: fictions may be free of internal contradictions; but they remain fictions (i.e., they "contradict" known historical facts).

If what is meant is "contradictions with known history, undisputed philosophy, and verifiable science"; well, then yes, the claims of the Bible would be beyond dispute if did not contradict any of these.

Your first paragraph agrees with the gist of the OP. Your second is an obvious commentary that misses the point. So since I have you here, let me focus it a bit and aim right at you.

In scenario A, we have supernatural/miraculous claims made by unknown/disputed writers with a decent idea of when they wrote them, and the texts are in some state state of dispute regarding how consistent they are with each other.


In scenario B, we have supernatural/miraculous claims that we know exactly who wrote them and exactly when and are in no way inconsistent with each other.


Regarding the supernatural/miraculous claims: Does the likelihood they're true INCREASE in scenario B?

[FWI]

Divine Insight (in post 14) introduced his outlook and explanation of the problems that people will face, when dealing with the contradictions and inconsistencies, which appear in the bible. He seemed to claim that because of these issues, the entire bible should be rejected. He stated:

Well, because who is then to say which parts of the Bible can be trusted and which parts cannot be trusted? If the reader has to be the one to decide, then morality becomes nothing more than the opinion of the reader. Some readers will reject some parts of the Bible as being false, whilst other will reject other parts. And neither reader can lay claim to having the "truth". If I need to PUSH my own personal sense of morality onto the Bible in order to decide which parts seem to me like they came from a God and which parts seem to me to have not come from any God. Then this necessarily requires that whatever results from that endeavor reflects "My Personal Moral Compass" and not the moral decrees of any God. If you need to decide which parts of the Bible represent what you believe to be moral, and reject the parts that you feel are not moral. They your morality originates entirely from your own personal opinions.

The problem with this analysis is: He is ignoring the most important part of the equation: The God family. It is God and His spiritual servants, which helps us to discern between the truth and the lies contained in the book known as the bible, not man. Hence, if an individual wants to know the truth of God ways, he/she will need to accept the sovereignty that God and the Christ has over us and ask for the required help. We must also do our part, through prayer and real study. Hence, when the truth is opened to us, we must not reject it.

[Divine Insight]

The problem with this analysis is: He is ignoring the most important part of the equation: The God family. It is God and His spiritual servants, which helps us to discern between the truth and the lies contained in the book known as the bible, not man. Hence, if an individual wants to know the truth of God ways, he/she will need to accept the sovereignty that God and the Christ has over us and ask for the required help. We must also do our part, through prayer and real study. Hence, when the truth is opened to us, we must not reject it.

What you have just stated here is demonstrably false.

For one thing, you can't pretend that Christianity represents "The Bible". It does not. In fact, it only represents a very belated twist and turn in the Biblical Saga. So you need to recognize that the people you think are "God's Family" would necessarily need to include the Jews, and all facets of Judaism. The Muslims, and all facets of Islam. As well as the Christians and all facets of Christianity.

But just for the sake of keeping things as simple as possible let's just focus in on Christianity alone. What do we see among the so-called "Christians"?

Well, obviously we see the Catholic Church and Catholicism. The only faction of Christianity that can even remotely lay claim to being a direct result of the teachings of Jesus. And yet we see grave division and diversity within Catholicism itself. Even the Catholic Popes have not been consistent in their views on Christianity over the centuries. So Christianity is dead in Catholicism.

What's left? The protesting Protestants? Just look at how divisive they are. They disagree with each other on such important issues that they have broken up into thousands of disagreeing demoninations.

So who represents "God's Family"? A small group of Amish people hiding out in the mountains somewhere?

And besides, if God is the creator of all humans then aren't all humans "Children of God"? Religion would have nothing to do with it.

And finally, if you need to claim that most people are "Children of Satan" then you have a polytheistic religion because Satan would need to be an "Evil God" in a religion that claims that some evil entity is in competition with the "Good God".

Face it, it's an ancient superstitious collection of tales that has no serious merit and cannot be made to work no matter how many apologetic arguments we try to throw at it.

If you want to take a stand for "Goodness" just do so. No need to join a religious propaganda machine for that. In fact, there is nothing "good" about taking sides in diverse religious factions pretending that the one you've chosen to join represents "God's Family" whilst all the others do not. There is no goodness in that. All that does is spread animosity and degradation to those who don't agree with the specific religious views that you have chosen to hold up as being the views of "God's Family". That actually ends up becoming a quite negative and destructive position that does no one any good in the end.

[William]

[Replying to post 19 by Divine Insight]

Well, obviously we see the Catholic Church and Catholicism. The only faction of Christianity that can even remotely lay claim to being a direct result of the teachings of Jesus.

Recently you said that you believed the Jesus was a Buddhist due to his teachings. Have you changed your mind re that, or are you saying that the Catholic Church and Catholicism are the same as Buddhism?