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?

[Difflugia]

You seem to be straying from OP and even from the point that I made. Textual contradictions are not established by sharing your view of religious thought, even if someone where interested your views on them.

I respectfully disagree. My question in the OP is about what methods apologists are willing to use to justify inerrancy and to what extent the choice of methods debases the entire enterprise. Comparing the methods of other exegetical topics is hardly straying more than diverting the discussion to specific contradictions. An earlier post wondered at the reasoning behind such a "meta" question. My reason is that I intended the question to be "meta."

Feel free to discuss the topic as you see fit, including arguing that the example contradictions aren't actually contradictions or choosing not to answer followup questions that I, myself find interesting. Please don't make the mistake, though, of thinking that I don't know what my own question meant.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 26 by Goose]

14 18

It seems Difflugia's fears were extremely well-founded

I am with Goose and JW here, at least in concept. It has been pretty well established that semitic genealogies were not always literal. The word son and descendent were the same word in Hebrew, and genealogists were known to only include the descendants (or ancestors, depending on your pov) that they wanted to.

You're telling me that information provided "was not always" accurate and people "were known to" include only details that they wanted to. Well sure, we could say the same thing about every culture which has ever existed: But okay, for the sake of argument let's assume that in this particular culture the creative liberties which 'Matthew' takes with the facts were within the bounds of widely-accepted norms. That doesn't change the fact that the information is false. We're not talking about allegory here, we're talking about statements regarding literal fact which are unequivocally false.

Matthew was making a theological point with his genealogy.

Of course he was: And if (as seems overwhelmingly probable) he simply invented the massacre of the innocents and the sojourn in Egypt, that was for a theological purpose also; as were his false prophecies that Jesus would return before the disciples had evangelized all of Israel and within his hearers' lifetimes; as was his decision to have Jesus ride two donkeys into Jerusalem; as was his mass resurrection of departed saints; as were his earthquakes at Jesus' death and resurrection. All features unique to Matthew, all highly dubious... and according to the reasoning that you are apparently championing, they may indeed all be literally false, but somehow valid in terms of some kind of "theological point."

Perhaps the virgin birth and resurrection, while not unique to Matthew, may also be just "theological points"? There's certainly enough, ah, differences in the various accounts to call their literal accuracy into serious question!

As Difflugia has pointed out, the kind of rationalization which biblicists apply to direct and unequivocal contradictions such as Matthew's genealogy not only would imply that literally everything ever written is 'inerrant,' but also therefore make it meaningless to assert that anything is 'true.'

[bjs]

But when we impose a modern standard on an ancient writing then the flaw is not with the ancient writing.

A modern standard like verbal inerrancy?

I have never heard the phrase verbal inerrancy before. What does it mean?

It would appear to mean that we expect every statement to be literally accurate. That, of course, would be ridiculous. We all use symbolic language all the time. This is especially true of English, where idioms are a huge part of our language. I assume thats not what you meant.

So what is verbal inerrancy, how is it a modern standard, and how does it show a contradiction in the genealogies of the Bible?

[bjs]

But okay, for the sake of argument let's assume that in this particular culture the creative liberties which 'Matthew' takes with the facts were within the bounds of widely-accepted norms. That doesn't change the fact that the information is false. We're not talking about allegory here, we're talking about statements regarding literal fact which are unequivocally false.

No, we cant say that the author of Matthew took creative liberties which were within the bounds of widely-accepted norms and say, were talking about statements regarding literal fact.

One of those two has to be false. Either this was a creative liberty within widely accepted norms, or it was a statement regarding literal fact. It cannot logically be both.






Edit: Let me give a modern illustration of this. A while ago I was talking to a local high school principle about a way that I could work with the school on a project. We wanted to discuss this in greater detail, but we could not do so at that moment. He said to me, I will call you to set up a meeting.

In reality, he did not call. He had the school secretary call. And the school secretary didnt reach me directly. She spoke with my secretary, who set up the meeting for me.

This didnt surprise me. I assumed it would probably be the secretary, not the principle, who called and I knew that she would probably speak to my secretary instead of me.

I could view the principles statement that he would call me as a creative liberty within the bounds of widely accepted norms, or I could say that it was a statement regarding literal fact which is unequivocally false. It cannot be both. While I obviously favor the former, it would be illogical for me to demand that the principles statement be both a creative liberty and a literal fact.

(Mithrae, I know that you dont live in the US. I hope the cultural norm applies to you.)

[Tcg]

I have never heard the phrase verbal inerrancy before. What does it mean?

Here is one group of orthodox Christians take on it:

• Verbal, plenary inspiration: The extending of Gods superintendence of the writing of Scripture down to the very choice of words, not merely to overarching themes or concepts; that is, the whole of Scripture and all of its parts, down to the very words of the original, were inspired (Chicago Statement).
  
  https://www.ligonier.org/blog/doctrine- ... our-terms/

This matches what I was taught in Bible College some forty years ago.


Tcg

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 61 by Difflugia]

Fair enough. I am uninterested in your views on religious thought or doctrine but feel free to engage with someone who is. If you have any other specific examples which you contend are actual contradictions, feel free to attempt to prove your case.


JW

[bjs]

I have never heard the phrase verbal inerrancy before. What does it mean?

Here is one group of orthodox Christians take on it:

• Verbal, plenary inspiration: The extending of Gods superintendence of the writing of Scripture down to the very choice of words, not merely to overarching themes or concepts; that is, the whole of Scripture and all of its parts, down to the very words of the original, were inspired (Chicago Statement).
  
  https://www.ligonier.org/blog/doctrine- ... our-terms/

This matches what I was taught in Bible College some forty years ago.


Tcg

Ok, but how does that apply here?

The context ofs Difflugia statement is if the Gospels " particularly the Gospel of John " are ordered chronologically. I do not think that they were, and this description of verbal inerrancy does not seem to require that they were.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with Difflugia?

[Difflugia]

I have never heard the phrase verbal inerrancy before. What does it mean?

It would appear to mean that we expect every statement to be literally accurate. That, of course, would be ridiculous. We all use symbolic language all the time. This is especially true of English, where idioms are a huge part of our language. I assume thats not what you meant.

So what is verbal inerrancy, how is it a modern standard, and how does it show a contradiction in the genealogies of the Bible?

Ok, but how does that apply here?

"Verbal inerrancy" means "inerrancy of the words." As Tcg mentioned, it often goes with "plenary," which means "total." "Plenary verbal inerrancy," then, is the doctrine that all of the words of the Bible are true. For each statement in the Bible, that statement is without error. The main competing notion of inerrancy is "doctrinal inerrancy," in which the Bible may contain mundane mistakes, but the Bible can still be trusted to be without error in any statement that bears on Christian doctrine.

The point that I was making wasn't that it shows a contradiction, but that verbal inerrancy is a modern idea applied to the text that wasn't in view when the text was written. I think that Matthew intended to contradict Mark on certain points and actually expected his readers to recognize that.

An example is the baptism theophany. Mark described the theophany as a personal appearance by the Father to Jesus; "You are my beloved son, in you I am well pleased." Matthew changed the scene to a public announcement, in which God addressed all gathered there; "This is my beloved so, in whom I am well pleased." Though we can't know for sure what Matthew was thinking, I don't think he was simply supplementing or even correcting Mark, but was establishing a higher Christology than Mark's. Matthew wasn't saying that the scene literally happened in a historical sense, nor did his contemporary audience think that. He was offering a different and competing way of thinking about Jesus as the Christ.

In short, I was implying that by attempting to apply inerrancy to texts that weren't expected to be inerrant (at least not together) by their authors, modern Christians are closing themselves off to insights put there by the authors themselves. Since that seemed to be the sentiment you were going for with your comment about modern ideas of history and biography, I thought it fitting.

[Mithrae]

But okay, for the sake of argument let's assume that in this particular culture the creative liberties which 'Matthew' takes with the facts were within the bounds of widely-accepted norms. That doesn't change the fact that the information is false. We're not talking about allegory here, we're talking about statements regarding literal fact which are unequivocally false.

No, we cant say that the author of Matthew took creative liberties which were within the bounds of widely-accepted norms and say, were talking about statements regarding literal fact.

One of those two has to be false. Either this was a creative liberty within widely accepted norms, or it was a statement regarding literal fact. It cannot logically be both.

Then since they clearly are statements regarding literal facts - literal presumed ancestors of Jesus who actually lived, at least in the author's view and probably in reality back to David at least - your argument suggests that the author's creative liberties must not have been within the bounds of widely-accepted norms. I've never seen evidence to suggest that this kind of genealogical modification lay within widely-accepted norms to begin with (a handful of examples of other folk perpetrating similar fraud obviously would not demonstrate that it was widely accepted), so the conclusion you're implying seems acceptable as far as I can tell.

So there goes that apologetic, according to your reasoning.

He said to me, I will call you to set up a meeting.

As I said, Matthew's genealogy is not allegory (nor idiom or the like). This is a pretty borderline example - I'm sure that in other circumstances some people would be offended that this fellow's stated personal involvement was delegated to an underling - but yes, we can recognize that in some circumstances it can be regarded as a figure of speech or idiom. However Matthew's genealogy is not an idiom, not a figure of speech, not an allegory or parable or metaphor. It discusses literal presumed ancestors of Jesus who actually lived; and whether or not his treatment of those facts lay within widely-accepted cultural norms (which has not been demonstrated and by your argument must not have been the case) does not change the fact that his claim is obviously false.

Nor does it change the fact - bringing attention back towards the thread topic - that if one were to accept your apologetic of false claims in literal content nevertheless being somehow valid as "theological points," a great deal of other apparently literal content for which there is any reason to question its literal truth (eg. the virgin birth, miracles and resurrection of Jesus) can likewise be plausibly supposed as merely "theological points" by the authors: Actual truth becomes all but meaningless in such a scenario.

[Goose]

Of course you think they are contradictory, others disagree. But I asked if there are any explicit logical contradictions (such as A and ~A). Those I would consider beyond rational justification. If they are some kind of implicit contradiction then the one arguing for the contradiction bears the burden to prove the contradiction. It's a lot harder to prove an implicit contradiction than one might think.

And that's what youve been arguing for at length in this thread (and others), implied contradictions. For those arguments to hold as contradictions the underlying assumptions must necessarily be the case.

I'll agree that the contradictions are implicit rather than explicit in the sense that magic unicorns are possible rather than impossible.

What on earth is that supposed to mean? Why are you talking about magic unicorns all of a sudden?

Look, the bottom line here is that when asked if there were any explicit logical contradictions (such as A and ~A) in the Bible you replied that, I think [the birth narratives and the Petrine denials are] both logically contradictory.

In regards to the Petrine denials you simply failed to show a logical contradiction such that A and ~A. I showed how the Petrine denials are a case of A and B. And thats not a contradiction.

What is implicit in the contradictions I raised is the way the authors use language.

But the way they use language doesnt yield a logical contradiction. Youve yet to show that.

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. The bottom line is that you failed to show a contradiction such that A and ~A.

And I think those assumptions are often highly questionable if not outright false in some cases.

Perhaps they often are, but do you think so in this case? Are my assumptions about the authors' uses of language "highly questionable" or "outright false"?

Yes. I showed that.

This assumes that Mark (and Matthew) necessarily meant a female and only a female approached Peter the second time. It further assumes that Luke necessarily meant that a male and only a male approached Peter the second time. Of course this in not necessarily the case at all.

I'll agree, but I think we're in magic unicorn territory.

Back to magic unicorns again. But at least you agree. Good. That means you agree your assumptions are not necessarily the case. Were almost done here with the Petrine denials, I think.

I think it's unreasonable to suggest that it's at all likely that Mark had in mind an exchange initiated by a woman to which Peter replied, "Man, I am not." Of course, it is possible. It's possible that Peter knew that a woman was asking, yet chose to be insulting in his response. I think, however, it's beyond any reasonable exegesis to suggest either of those in any seriousness.

Youre knocking down a strawman here if this is intended to be directed at my arguments. I made no such suggestion.

It is not the case the second denial must be to someone who is both a woman and a man. It could also be the case that the second denial was to a woman (or women) and a man (or men).

If we're playing logic games with language, I don't think it could. The response in Luke is to a single person, a man. Even if God were here to explain His rules of inerrancy logic, though, I think it's clear that we've gone well beyond the realm of author intention. We are no longer reading the text to divine the intent of the authors, but to satisfy a particular notion of verbal inerrancy.

Theres no logic games with language or inerrancy logic here. Its just logic. Basic logic, actually. You claimed the second denial must be to someone who is both a woman and a man. I showed that is not necessarily the case.

In the context of my original question, how would you rank an author's likely intent compared to an interpretation that preserves verbal inerrancy?

We should always try our best to understand the authors intention. The intention of the author should inform our interpretation, not the other way around.

How unlikely must a reading be that otherwise preserves inerrancy before it should be discarded?

A reading that one thinks is unlikely enough to warrant discarding ought to be discarded. Preserving inerrancy has nothing to do with it as far as Im concerned.

My inclination is to find a way to harmonize texts if possible because I think it more reasonable to move towards preserving history so we can learn from it rather than move towards destroying history. That goes for secular and other religious texts as well.

Is literal impossibility your only threshold?

Not sure what you mean by literal impossibility being my only threshold. If you are referring to what I said in this post, that was in context to answering your OP question and what I would consider beyond rational justification.

And I think the evidence supports the latter especially when we consider all four Gospels have more than one male and more than one female at the scene in each respective narrative.

I think "the evidence supports" is an odd choice of phrase. I would consider the primary evidence to be a plain reading of the authors' words.

But a plain reading of the authors words doesnt get you a logical contradiction such that A and ~A. I showed that.

My original point is that expanding the meaning of "possible" in our present context has the effect of rendering nearly any text as potentially inerrant.

Okay, so lets say nearly any text is potentially inerrant. Whats the problem with that? You do understand theres a difference between potentiality and actuality, right?

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that by your rules, a text that could be demonstrated to be errant would be extremely rare.

Sure, if my only rule for demonstrating that a text was errant were the presence of an explicit logical contradiction within the text. But I didnt say that. In fact, come to think of it, I dont recall making any claims about inerrancy at all. The only time I mentioned it was to ask if taking it down inerrancy was your ultimate end game. Youre the one who has been going off on the tangent of inerrancy. Ive been addressing your question about what is considered unjustifiable when it some to dismissing contradictions.

Thus, claiming that atheists haven't found any contradictions in the Bible is either meaningless or equivocating;

Youre knocking down a big fat strawman here. I didnt claim that. I asked you if there are any explicit logical contradictions in the Bible (such as A and ~A)? You responded that you think there are. You tried to argue, as an example, the Petrine denials are logically contradictory. I showed they arent.

...either contradictions are so rare in any document that their lack is only the feeblest evidence of any veracity (let alone inspiration), or one claiming a lack of contradictions is intentionally implying a much broader and more meaningful definition of "contradiction" before narrowing it to where it loses any diagnostic power at all.

Im working within the standard definition of what constitutes a logical contradiction. You said you think the Petrine denials are, and I quote, logically contradictory.

But it seems to me, you want to broaden the definition of what constitutes a logical contradiction to such a point that A and B are a contradiction.

Furthermore, if you wish to argue for a contradiction here at the second denial you must explain why Luke would intentionally contradict Mark on the second denial when Lukes tendency, when he reworked Mark, was to amend Mark for his own purposes and not outright contradict Mark. Why contradict Mark on this seemingly obscure and trivial detail?

I expect that Matthew and Luke changed Matthew for the same reason. Mark's first two contradictions were to the same person, so could conceivably be rolled into the same denial. Matthew simply changed "the servant" into "another."

I dont know what you mean by Mark's first two contradictions were to the same person. There doesnt seem to be anything contradictory in Marks account in and of itself. Are you suggesting Matthew and Luke had some reason to think Mark was wrong and thats why they changed Mark?

Luke made the same kind of change, but added language to space the denials out in time.

But that doesnt explain why they would make the change.

Luke contradicted Mark on a number of details (at least by normal rules; Jesus having last words, the women having spices prepared beforehand, two men in the tomb) as part of his overall reworking, so I don't see this as an anomaly.

You are arguing in a circle here. These other details you point to here arent contradictions by the normal rules of what constitutes a contradiction. They are contradictions by your rules. So, yes, it would be an anomaly if Luke outright contradicted Mark.

Lastly, lets assume this second denial example is a bonafide contradiction. What, exactly, do you think this implies let alone proves? Please dont tell me all your effort amounts to an end game of merely attempting to take down the doctrine of inerrancy. Hopefully, you are going for some higher hanging fruit here?

My button (trolls, take note) is apologists claiming that the Bible has no contradictions as though that's evidence that it's special, but then defining contradiction to the point that the term is absolutely meaningless.

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

And you dont seem to have a problem with hyper sceptics who define a contradiction in such way as to allow virtually any differences in the text no matter how trivial thereby making the claim the Bible has numerous contradictions absolutely meaningless.

My goal, quixotic though it might be, is to ask apologists to examine their own rules such that they might see that inerrancy is something they're imposing upon the Bible, rather than something that can be inferred from the state of the text itself.

So in the end, it is all about taking down inerrancy after all.

Okay, so let me ask again because you didn't really answer this question. Lets say youve shown a contradiction and taken down the doctrine of inerrancy. What does that prove aside from the doctrine of inerrancy is false? Where are you going with this? Because it kinda seems like you arent really going anywhere with it.