Thinking of explanations

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Thinking of explanations

Post #1

Post by nobspeople »

We all know there are biblical contradictions. This has been discussed here many times in various threads so this thread is NOT about what the contradictions are, or what they mean (or don't mean). This thread is about the reason WHY christians have to negotiate around these contradictions.

Reading an article recently, the author said "Give me a long list of apparent contradictions, and I can usually think of explanations."
It made me wonder WHY said author has to do this.
It seems to me if god is perfect and caring enough to provide a biography of sorts (or road map of life, as I've heard it called before), god would take the time to make sure the bible is accurate and contradiction free (see [for some apparently masochistic reason] a popular thread on this site about the bible being trustworthy). Yet, we see contradictions in the bible in various places. So god allowed the contradictions. Is god testing the faith of believers? Is god inept? Worthless (or at the very least, not worthy of worship)? Moronic?

Whatever the reason, believers have to 'come to terms' with these contradictions.

But the question is WHY?

For 'discussion':
If god exists, it allowed these contradictions to permeate its book, so the believers have to work around them. Why? What's the point for such a 'loving and all knowing' being to sow discourse and cast doubt on its own story? Help make sense of this senseless act.
Or is there no god at all, and the bible is a hodgepodge of slapped together fairy tales but clueless people who wish to cominate and control the masses?
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

bjs1
Sage
Posts: 898
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2020 12:18 pm
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 225 times

Re: Thinking of explanations

Post #21

Post by bjs1 »

Miles wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 2:28 pm My mistake. I assumed you knew what the terms "begat" and "son of" meant.
For whatever it is worth, no form of the word for “beget” is found in the Greek text of Luke chapter 3. The Greek word for “son” is found only once in that passage, when it was used to describe Jesus as “being the son, as was supposed, of Joseph.”

The concept must be inferred from the context. The words “son of” is a fine inference, but so is the word “descendant.”

“Descendant” and “son” are the same word in Hebrew.
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.
-Charles Darwin

bjs1
Sage
Posts: 898
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2020 12:18 pm
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 225 times

Re: Thinking of explanations

Post #22

Post by bjs1 »

[Replying to nobspeople in post #1]

Have you at least considered the possibility that it is not Christians trying to negotiate around contradictions, but rather it is those opposed to Christianity trying to create contradictions where none exist? Or perhaps jumping on the idea of biblical contradictions without doing the necessary research about ancient cultures and languages to see if there is really anything there?

I admit that spending several years at least occasionally checking in on debates on this forum has soured me on the idea of biblical contradictions. I understand that there are discrepancies between 1 & 2 Kings and 1 & 2 Chronicles – things like the price of lumber and such. However, the vast majority of claimed contradictions seem contrived if not outright silly. Sometimes knowledge of the language is necessary to understand the text. Sometimes the claimed contradiction is resolved by knowing something about the culture, or by reading the entire text instead of just a single line out of context. And sometimes the claim of a contradiction is so convoluted that I can only chalk it up to a people seeing what they want to see.
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.
-Charles Darwin

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Thinking of explanations

Post #23

Post by Difflugia »

bjs1 wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 12:12 amHave you at least considered the possibility that it is not Christians trying to negotiate around contradictions, but rather it is those opposed to Christianity trying to create contradictions where none exist? Or perhaps jumping on the idea of biblical contradictions without doing the necessary research about ancient cultures and languages to see if there is really anything there?
Yes. Any amount of engagement with apologetics makes it clear that neither of those is what's going on.
bjs1 wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 12:12 amI admit that spending several years at least occasionally checking in on debates on this forum has soured me on the idea of biblical contradictions. I understand that there are discrepancies between 1 & 2 Kings and 1 & 2 Chronicles – things like the price of lumber and such. However, the vast majority of claimed contradictions seem contrived if not outright silly. Sometimes knowledge of the language is necessary to understand the text. Sometimes the claimed contradiction is resolved by knowing something about the culture, or by reading the entire text instead of just a single line out of context. And sometimes the claim of a contradiction is so convoluted that I can only chalk it up to a people seeing what they want to see.
Are you saying that most apparent contradictions can be resolved or all of them?

Whether or not the "price of lumber" is important depends on if inerrancy is the doctrine in question. If one isn't an inerrantist, then a lot of the contradictions are indeed silly, but I'd argue that that's because inerrancy as doctrine is silly.

If one is looking at whether or not the stories are reliable as history, then the approach is different, but the effect is the same. Did Abraham and Isaac both have exactly the same experience by telling King Abimelech that their wives were sisters? Are the birth and infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke just two half-descriptions of the same zigzag travel itinerary that somehow have absolutely no overlap? The reasons are different, but neither pair of stories is coherent together. At least one of each pair of stories is mistaken or fictional and nobody "opposed to Christianity" had to invent that. Apologists have taken multiple approaches in harmonizing the stories and whether or not they've succeeded isn't the point of this topic. The question is why apologists would have to if the stories themselves were supernaturally guided to be understandable in the first place.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Re: Thinking of explanations

Post #24

Post by nobspeople »

[Replying to bjs1 in post #22]
Have you at least considered the possibility that it is not Christians trying to negotiate around contradictions,
No, because if you're not a christian, you don't care about working around something that contradicts something else you don't believe in or accept.
but rather it is those opposed to Christianity trying to create contradictions
That doesn't make sense. Why would one that doesn't believe in something 'make up' contradictions, especially when they're right there in black-n-white? Paranoia? Conspiracies and all that? :drunk:
where none exist?
Yet lists abound showing this isn't true when looked at it honestly and verbatim. Of course, anyone can argue away/make excuses for anything that doesn't fit their chosen lifestyle agenda
Or perhaps jumping on the idea of biblical contradictions without doing the necessary research about ancient cultures and languages to see if there is really anything there?
This explanation comes up time and time again. I wonder why, exact, research needs to be done here. I mean, surely god would provide the same 'research results' to everyone throughout history. In other words, what we can 'learn' today would be available to those 100 years ago, 500 years ago, 1000 years ago. Surely god wouldn't expect people from 500 years ago to travel to a foreign land, learn the language, dive into the history of the region, and on and on just to convince themselves a contradiction isn't there?
the vast majority of claimed contradictions seem contrived if not outright silly.
Surely that's your choice to make. Silly or not, even 1 contradiction speaks to a 'lack of a good editor' at the very least. Maybe god is slacking? Maybe god doesn't care? Maybe all the contradictions are 'silly' people looking for what's not there? Or maybe the writing is simply done by people, inspired only by the hope of a god?
Sometimes knowledge of the language is necessary to understand the text.
Then god needs to provide that to everyone all the time, via direct connection or editors. Seems that's not happening.
Sometimes the claimed contradiction is resolved by knowing something about the culture, or by reading the entire text instead of just a single line out of context.
See previous reply
And sometimes the claim of a contradiction is so convoluted that I can only chalk it up to a people seeing what they want to see.
Sometimes, yes. But the same can be said about people who read and believe in the bible. Spiritual pareidolia
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: Thinking of explanations

Post #25

Post by TRANSPONDER »

bjs1 wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 12:12 am [Replying to nobspeople in post #1]

Have you at least considered the possibility that it is not Christians trying to negotiate around contradictions, but rather it is those opposed to Christianity trying to create contradictions where none exist? Or perhaps jumping on the idea of biblical contradictions without doing the necessary research about ancient cultures and languages to see if there is really anything there?

I admit that spending several years at least occasionally checking in on debates on this forum has soured me on the idea of biblical contradictions. I understand that there are discrepancies between 1 & 2 Kings and 1 & 2 Chronicles – things like the price of lumber and such. However, the vast majority of claimed contradictions seem contrived if not outright silly. Sometimes knowledge of the language is necessary to understand the text. Sometimes the claimed contradiction is resolved by knowing something about the culture, or by reading the entire text instead of just a single line out of context. And sometimes the claim of a contradiction is so convoluted that I can only chalk it up to a people seeing what they want to see.
We (Bible critics) have to think of that, because Christian apologists regularly claim it. But they do exist, persistently and glaringly and undeniably, unless the whole belief -system employs denial from oblivion up to and including lies, in order to claim that there are no contradictions where there absolutely are. (n.b Gospel contradiction are the ones that matter, not so much OT)

Now, Bible apologists may claim to be able to explain these contradictions ,and we know how they do it.

One of the evangelists didn't see the need to mention it
Each of them remembered different things
Jesus did or said the same thing at different times
History (science) is wrong.
There is probably some explanation even if we don't know what. We must have Faith.
Weaving the disparate elements together and rewriting the story at need.

This is why 'one angel or two' is no use as it is too easily explainable. Even 'Did Judas hang himself or fall and burst open?' can be (has been) explained by 'weaving together' "Judas hung himself, the rope broke and he burst open'.

Some are really trying it on. Like the disciples going to Galilee (as instructed in Matthew) after the resurrection, but Staying in Jerusalem (as instructed) in Luke. "They could have gone to Galilee and come back."

Asking 'why would they need to go to Galilee when Jesus had appeared to them Sunday evening and lectured them on scripture for a month afterwards' would only get a shrug and: 'There must have been some reason'.

Faith -based denial. and pointing out (as I do) that Luke changed the angelic message from going to Galilee to what Jesus told them in Galilee because Luke knows (from Paul's letters - on evidence) that they didn't go to Galilee but stayed in Jerusalem, founding the 'Church' that Paul would adapt for his fellow Romans by scrapping the Jewish Law.

The response from that was the one I got to my rebuttal of the the clever explanation of why Matthew has the women see Jesus but Luke says specifically that they did not'

'One Mary went one way and the saw Jesus, the other went a different way and didn't see him.' :D Clever. But it requires ignoring/rewriting of the Bible. In both cases it was the women who saw Jesus and both of the women who see angels but not Jesus. It's specific. Add to that Cleophas returning to Jerusalem and still no mention of the women seeing Jesus. Further, there was only one route - Gethsemane to Bethany. Yes, I know it is supposed to be between the House in the city and Golgotha, but it can't be as all new tombs were on the mount of Olives (1). Response. Silence. Our clever pal may be rethinking it or it may be just 'ignore the debunks'. Which is how Gospel apologists keep with the claim that there are no contradictions. They stick their fingers in their ears and ignore them and trust that the opposition will not know better or will be kept silent.

And that works. How many people know that John has no transfiguration? None? How many people know that Luke shifted the anointing to Galilee? None? How many people know that Jesus tossed Sabbath observance in the bin? None. How many know that John denies that Jesus was born in Bethlehem? One, I have ever seen. His opponent said 'Jesus was just straightening them out'. Which is as impudently evasive as I have seen. (2).

Obviously some contradictions are more easy to explain than others. How the heck John knew of what Caiaphas discussed about eliminating Jesus and also what the Tomb guard discussed with the High priest is explained by an informant in the Sanhedrin or some convert who told them later on; and I already did about 'Why do none of the other writers know about this?' Same as why John has no Sanhedrin trial and the Synoptics no spear thrust. "Oh...they didn't bother to mention that...just weave the contradictions into a revised story'. That's how it's done and how you get to claim 'There are no contradictions'.

I won't even deal with the lies (or deception, at least) like Strobel claiming that he was an atheist convinced of the resurrection by the evidence, when he only cites hardcore apologists and not a single 'problem' (contradiction) that an atheist would know (3) or that ex detective who claims that the resurrection would stand up in a court of Law. Like hell it would; it would be declared invalid evidence and the evangelists thrown into the street with a summons on a perjury charge. But I'll conclude my rant (and many thanks for the opportunity :) ) by saying that this is why the touchstone cases are important. The nativity is demonstrable as irreconcilably contradictory. One account at least has to be false and (on evidence) neither can really work. What is more, is that the wangle can be detected (4) in the story and we know why the story had to be invented.

This was discussed on my previous board with a tough opponent (5) and it cleared up all the '2nd census' excuses, like 'when Quirinus was governor' is rewritten as 'before Quirinus was governor' and the empty governorship which is supposed to be this 'Herodian census'. The Nativity is done and dusted as a touchstone contradiction and a discredit of at least one on Matthew or Luke and (on evidence) both. And after that, the resurrection is almost as bad. It really is soaked in contradictions. But somehow, Bible critics don't use them. It's all 'one angel or two'. Or, as you put it 'What's price of lumber?' arguing about trivia and the biggies get ignored.

Following those, Judas' death looks a real contradiction and the excuse loses credibility. As well as the 'who bought the field' contradiction, and the dogs' breakfast of the prophecies in both Matthew and Acts. Then the rest of the problems, like no Temple cleansing in John, No Nazareth murder in anyone but Luke, no Antipas knocking Jesus about in anyone but Luke, dis Paul flee the Nabatean army or a Jewish plot?. Then a whole string of discrepancies known to Bible critics or (inexplicably) missed (6) go down the tube, followed by the penitent thief, Pilate's surprise, the draft of fish and Sinking Simon, followed by the Shekel -eating fish, No raising of Lazarus, a lot of missing parables, discrepancies of foot washing, calling of disciples, cursing of fig tree, walking on water, the feeding of the 4,000, Sermon material, Luke chapters 11 -17 inclusive.......

....and most of the rest of the book.

(1) You can guarantee that the 'sepulchres' (both of them) and the Via Dolorosa are neither Jesus' tomb or the way he went to crucifixion. Save your money, Holyland tourists.

(2) apart from the opponent who 'explained' Luke not having Thomas absent by pasting the two passages and saying 'There is no contradiction' (without any explanation). But by then he was just doing "Wind up an atheist for Jesus" thing (parting shot and flounce, a whole other gambit worthy of discussion).

(3) foopnote frenzy 8-) but this is a common and recurring Bible apologist ploy "I used to be an atheist...like you...until..." And then they trot out a string of Bible apologetics which no atheist would have fallen for. Unless they were tabula rasa (Latin for clean table and not a Brazilian folk instrument) non -believers, and all they heard were the Christian apologists.

(4) Wheee! :P Matthew has Parthian (Chaldean) magi trekking to Judea (give or take a star leading them no more than a hundred meters up) to 'worship' a son of Judea royalty (they'd assume) but Herod jumping to the conclusion that this is the Messiah of scripture who would be born in.....drumroll....Bethlehem!! In o.w A Prophecy written as a narrative. While Luke (who does 'history' rather than prophecy), uses the mechanism of the Roman census (he read it in Josephus) to wangle Joseph on this absurd and pointless trek to Bethlehem (dragging along his near -term wife, mark you) simply and solely to wangle Jesus to being born in Bethlehem as (John tells us this) scripture said he ought to be.

(5) this is great. Though he Used a familiar method of cutting and pasting apologetics and, when they were debunked, collapsed immediately into denial, "Science denial" (Josephus' was wrong - the Bible is right), misdirection and just impudence. Bewildered me until I realised how he'd been working. :)

(6) and why not? And atheists, Bible critics and the like goddless bastards need to learn, remember and use these. It is inexplicable why they have ignored them and allowed the denialists for Jesus to get away with contradiction -denial for so long.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: Thinking of explanations

Post #26

Post by TRANSPONDER »

bjs1 wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 12:12 am [Replying to nobspeople in post #1]

Have you at least considered the possibility that it is not Christians trying to negotiate around contradictions, but rather it is those opposed to Christianity trying to create contradictions where none exist? Or perhaps jumping on the idea of biblical contradictions without doing the necessary research about ancient cultures and languages to see if there is really anything there?

I admit that spending several years at least occasionally checking in on debates on this forum has soured me on the idea of biblical contradictions. I understand that there are discrepancies between 1 & 2 Kings and 1 & 2 Chronicles – things like the price of lumber and such. However, the vast majority of claimed contradictions seem contrived if not outright silly. Sometimes knowledge of the language is necessary to understand the text. Sometimes the claimed contradiction is resolved by knowing something about the culture, or by reading the entire text instead of just a single line out of context. And sometimes the claim of a contradiction is so convoluted that I can only chalk it up to a people seeing what they want to see.
We (Bible critics) have to think of that, because Christian apologists regularly claim it. But they do exist, persistently and glaringly and undeniably, unless the whole belief -system employs denial from oblivion up to and including lies, in order to claim that there are no contradictions where there absolutely are. (n.b Gospel contradiction are the ones that matter, not so much OT)

Now, Bible apologists may claim to be able to explain these contradictions ,and we know how they do it.

One of the evangelists didn't see the need to mention it
Each of them remembered different things
Jesus did or said the same thing at different times
History (science) is wrong.
There is probably some explanation even if we don't know what. We must have Faith.
Weaving the disparate elements together and rewriting the story at need.

This is why 'one angel or two' is no use as it is too easily explainable. Even 'Did Judas hang himself or fall and burst open?' can be (has been) explained by 'weaving together' "Judas hung himself, the rope broke and he burst open'.

Some are really trying it on. Like the disciples going to Galilee (as instructed in Matthew) after the resurrection, but Staying in Jerusalem (as instructed) in Luke. "They could have gone to Galilee and come back."

Asking 'why would they need to go to Galilee when Jesus had appeared to them Sunday evening and lectured them on scripture for a month afterwards' would only get a shrug and: 'There must have been some reason'.

Faith -based denial. and pointing out (as I do) that Luke changed the angelic message from going to Galilee to what Jesus told them in Galilee because Luke knows (from Paul's letters - on evidence) that they didn't go to Galilee but stayed in Jerusalem, founding the 'Church' that Paul would adapt for his fellow Romans by scrapping the Jewish Law.

The response from that was the one I got to my rebuttal of the the clever explanation of why Matthew has the women see Jesus but Luke says specifically that they did not'

'One Mary went one way and the saw Jesus, the other went a different way and didn't see him.' :D Clever. But it requires ignoring/rewriting of the Bible. In both cases it was the women who saw Jesus and both of the women who see angels but not Jesus. It's specific. Add to that Cleophas returning to Jerusalem and still no mention of the women seeing Jesus. Further, there was only one route - Gethsemane to Bethany. Yes, I know it is supposed to be between the House in the city and Golgotha, but it can't be as all new tombs were on the mount of Olives (1). Response. Silence. Our clever pal may be rethinking it or it may be just 'ignore the debunks'. Which is how Gospel apologists keep with the claim that there are no contradictions. They stick their fingers in their ears and ignore them and trust that the opposition will not know better or will be kept silent.

And that works. How many people know that John has no transfiguration? None? How many people know that Luke shifted the anointing to Galilee? None? How many people know that Jesus tossed Sabbath observance in the bin? None. How many know that John denies that Jesus was born in Bethlehem? One, I have ever seen. His opponent said 'Jesus was just straightening them out'. Which is as impudently evasive as I have seen. (2).

Obviously some contradictions are more easy to explain than others. How the heck John knew of what Caiaphas discussed about eliminating Jesus and also what the Tomb guard discussed with the High priest is explained by an informant in the Sanhedrin or some convert who told them later on; and I already did about 'Why do none of the other writers know about this?' Same as why John has no Sanhedrin trial and the Synoptics no spear thrust. "Oh...they didn't bother to mention that...just weave the contradictions into a revised story'. That's how it's done and how you get to claim 'There are no contradictions'.

I won't even deal with the lies (or deception, at least) like Strobel claiming that he was an atheist convinced of the resurrection by the evidence, when he only cites hardcore apologists and not a single 'problem' (contradiction) that an atheist would know (3) or that ex detective who claims that the resurrection would stand up in a court of Law. Like hell it would; it would be declared invalid evidence and the evangelists thrown into the street with a summons on a perjury charge. But I'll conclude my rant (and many thanks for the opportunity :) ) by saying that this is why the touchstone cases are important. The nativity is demonstrable as irreconcilably contradictory. One account at least has to be false and (on evidence) neither can really work. What is more, is that the wangle can be detected (4) in the story and we know why the story had to be invented.

This was discussed on my previous board with a tough opponent (5) and it cleared up all the '2nd census' excuses, like 'when Quirinus was governor' is rewritten as 'before Quirinus was governor' and the empty governorship which is supposed to be this 'Herodian census'. The Nativity is done and dusted as a touchstone contradiction and a discredit of at least one on Matthew or Luke and (on evidence) both. And after that, the resurrection is almost as bad. It really is soaked in contradictions. But somehow, Bible critics don't use them. It's all 'one angel or two'. Or, as you put it 'What's price of lumber?' arguing about trivia and the biggies get ignored.

Following those, Judas' death looks a real contradiction and the excuse loses credibility. As well as the 'who bought the field' contradiction, and the dogs' breakfast of the prophecies in both Matthew and Acts. Then the rest of the problems, like no Temple cleansing in John, No Nazareth murder in anyone but Luke, no Antipas knocking Jesus about in anyone but Luke, dis Paul flee the Nabatean army or a Jewish plot?. Then a whole string of discrepancies known to Bible critics or (inexplicably) missed (6) go down the tube, followed by the penitent thief, Pilate's surprise, the draft of fish and Sinking Simon, followed by the Shekel -eating fish, No raising of Lazarus, a lot of missing parables, discrepancies of foot washing, calling of disciples, cursing of fig tree, walking on water, the feeding of the 4,000, Sermon material, Luke chapters 11 -17 inclusive.......

....and most of the rest of the book.

(1) You can guarantee that the 'sepulchres' (both of them) and the Via Dolorosa are neither Jesus' tomb or the way he went to crucifixion. Save your money, Holyland tourists.

(2) apart from the opponent who 'explained' Luke not having Thomas absent by pasting the two passages and saying 'There is no contradiction' (without any explanation). But by then he was just doing "Wind up an atheist for Jesus" thing (parting shot and flounce, a whole other gambit worthy of discussion).

(3) foopnote frenzy 8-) but this is a common and recurring Bible apologist ploy "I used to be an atheist...like you...until..." And then they trot out a string of Bible apologetics which no atheist would have fallen for. Unless they were tabula rasa (Latin for clean table and not a Brazilian folk instrument) non -believers, and all they heard were the Christian apologists.

(4) Wheee! :P Matthew has Parthian (Chaldean) magi trekking to Judea (give or take a star leading them no more than a hundred meters up) to 'worship' a son of Judea royalty (they'd assume) but Herod jumping to the conclusion that this is the Messiah of scripture who would be born in.....drumroll....Bethlehem!! In o.w A Prophecy written as a narrative. While Luke (who does 'history' rather than prophecy), uses the mechanism of the Roman census (he read it in Josephus) to wangle Joseph on this absurd and pointless trek to Bethlehem (dragging along his near -term wife, mark you) simply and solely to wangle Jesus to being born in Bethlehem as (John tells us this) scripture said he ought to be.

(5) this is great. Though he Used a familiar method of cutting and pasting apologetics and, when they were debunked, collapsed immediately into denial, "Science denial" (Josephus' was wrong - the Bible is right), misdirection and just impudence. Bewildered me until I realised how he'd been working. :)

(6) and why not? And atheists, Bible critics and the like goddless bastards need to learn, remember and use these. It is inexplicable why they have ignored them and allowed the denialists for Jesus to get away with contradiction -denial for so long.

Post Reply