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?

[JehovahsWitness]

14 is not 18. That's not an 'implication,' that is a fact. 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). This is a direct and obvious logical contradiction...

Matthew summarizes the counting system for the information he presented I know of no other writer that does this. In order to establish a contradiction we first need a statement with the number "18" in it and then we need a statement that each list is exhaustive. Otherwise we may have two lists reflecting various degrees of inclusivity, both of which may be true.

• STATEMENT #1
  In my high school picture there are Sarah B. , Matthew B., Peter D., Felicia, H., and Jane R.

  STATEMENT #2
  In my high school picture there are Karen A., Sarah B. , Peter D., Harold K., Jane R. and SuLi X. Six students

  • QUESTION : Are these statements contradictory?
  • QUESTION : Does statement #1 claim there were no more than five students in the classs?
  • QUESTION :Does five students on one the list mean there could not be six students in someone else's list? If not, why not ?
  • QUESTION : Does either statement claim the total number of students in the class?

One has to understand what a contradiction is before one is in a postion to argue for or against one*.

[*] NOTE I am confident YOU do know what a contradiction is, this is not an attack against you or anyone posting here. It is a general statement in view of the ignorance I have come across away from this board.

Scriptural references where the number 18 is mentioned by the writer would be appreciated.


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

The standard apologetic approach is to dismiss claims about contradictions because the term "contradiction" doesn't strictly apply in cases where the specified discrepancies are actually "differences" between multiple accounts. However, this apologetic still fails to demonstrate where the proposed harmonization of multiple discordant accounts is a plausible and reliable explanation.

I personally am uninterested in discussing plausibility in a thread dedicated to contradictions. This amounts to shifting the goalposts. However, I will say that that which may seem implausible may well be true depending on a host of extenuating circumstances factors which may or may not be available for our examination.

Further in my experience those that attempt to dismiss an explanation as "implausible" , "laughable" or "absurd", rarely take the time to present with supporting evidence why they come to s such a conclusion, presumably hoping to shame opponents out of asking for solid counter arguments based on something other than confirmation bias or a presupposition of the truth of naturalism.




JEHOVAHS WITNESS



RELATED POSTS

What is a contradiction?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 252#999252

Is it "absurd" to suggest the angels in the resurrection narrative were mobile?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 80#1000080

[Mithrae]

14 is not 18. That's not an 'implication,' that is a fact. 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). This is a direct and obvious logical contradiction...

Matthew summarizes the counting system for the information he presented I know of no other writer that does this. In order to establish a contradiction we first need a statement with the number "18" in it

No, we do not. Eighteen generations are listed in Kings and Chronicles: Claiming that it doesn't assert eighteen generations unless the text specifically includes the number eighteen would quite simply be a lie.

and then we need a statement that each list is exhaustive.

Which 'Matthew' does assert: "So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations."

[JehovahsWitness]

... Eighteen generations are listed in Kings and Chronicles: Claiming that it doesn't assert eighteen generations unless the text specifically includes the number eighteen would quite simply be a lie.

No it would be a statement of fact. One cannot assert a statement was made when it was not, and the implications of the absence of an explicit statement has a huge bearing on whether a contradiction can or cannot be established.


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

and then we need a statement that each list is exhaustive.

Which 'Matthew' does assert: "So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations."

No he explains his listing system "14 generations... [from Point A to Point B]"...etc., the implication being those are the numbers in his listing.

What he does he does not state is that his list includes all the individuals that have ever existed in the lineage. Matthew (ever the accountant) he says: " * ALL *the generations... " but since he stops short of saying " all the generations THAT HAVE EVER EXISTED or can be found on any listings anywhere on earth". We are as free to conclude his list is not exhaustive as we are to assume it was. In short, all the people on my list of those present doesnt mean 18 people can't be on someone else's list of those present - depending on how they are doing the counting and who they choose to include. (See my explanation for the difference between a list and a statement that ones list is exhaustive/absolute).
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 44#1000444


JW

[Tcg]

and then we need a statement that each list is exhaustive.

Which 'Matthew' does assert: "So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations."

No he states his list counts 14 generations... he does not state that there were ONLY 14 generations that existed. (See my explanation for the difference between a list and a statement that ones list is all that ever existed.


JW

He states this: "So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations..."

<bolding mine>

Using the quantifier "all" indicates that the number fourteen is indeed an exact total.

If I were to state, "All fourteen of my brothers were at my birthday party", that is a clear indication that I have precisely fourteen brothers.

If I were to state, "Fourteen of my brothers were at my birthday party", that would open the door for the possibility of more brothers.

The passage in question uses the quantifier "all" and is a clear indication that there were precisely fourteen generations.


Tcg

[Tcg]

What he does he does not state is that his list includes all the individuals that have ever existed in the lineage.


JW

As I have explained in my previous post, that is precisely what he does:

"So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations..."

<bolding mine>


Tcg

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 42 by JehovahsWitness]

The possibility of an implausible claim being true does not demonstrate an implausible claim is true or justifiably believed.

Asking the skeptic to provide supporting evidence for their skepticism is an attempt to shift the burden of proof. "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens

[Mithrae]

Eighteen generations are listed in Kings and Chronicles: Claiming that it doesn't assert eighteen generations unless the text specifically includes the number eighteen would quite simply be a lie.

No it would be a statement of fact. One cannot assert a statement was made when it was not, and the implications of the absence of an explicit statement has a huge bearing on whether a contradiction can or cannot be established.

According to the Old Testament, how many generations were there between David and his descendant Jeconiah?

Which 'Matthew' does assert: "So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations."

No he explains his listing system "14 generations... [from Point A to Point B]"...etc., the implication being those are the numbers in his listing. What he does he does not state is that his list includes all the individuals that have ever existed in the lineage.

He does not 'explain' whatever it is you're imagining here. If what you are imagining were the case, an explanation would consist of the author writing "I have listed 14 of the generations from David to Jeconiah even though there were more," but in reality the verse does quite the opposite: It directly creates an equivalency between the generations from Abraham to David, David to Jeconiah and Jeconiah to Jesus - 14 in each case - and explicitly claims that these are "all the generations."



In any case, I think Difflugia has the best approach to this issue. You can't really argue with pretzel logic and self-delusion; so sure, let's pretend that there is some kind of special, totally-not-completely-absurd set of criteria by which there are no biblical errors or contradictions. Then the simple fact is that by these criteria biblicists apply to their "word of God" literally everything in all the world is inerrant. Goose talks about A and ~A, but even in those cases of which there are plenty (eg. God is love, God hates Esau etc; God is not willing that any should perish, some are created as vessels of wrath prepared for destruction; God is not the author of confusion, God hides his message and sends a powerful delusion etc. etc.) the predictable response is "No, they're not talking about A and ~A at the same time and in the same sense" and (as we see in this case) "The author didn't really mean what he wrote or write what he really meant!"

[JehovahsWitness]

He does not 'explain' whatever it is you're imagining here.

Let us not attempt to debate what is in my imagination, let us stick to the actual words in the text shall we?

As for Mattews statement about "all the generations.. " See my post above
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 64#1000464



JW