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!

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Thinking of explanations

Post #11

Post by Miles »

1213 wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 8:39 am
Miles wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 2:37 pm
1213 wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 8:59 am
nobspeople wrote: Tue Apr 26, 2022 1:03 pm ...
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?
I think this whole question is based on false premise that makes the whole thing irrelevant.
Are you saying that if god exists the Bible can't contain any contradictions?
No. I say that i don't think you can really prove there is any real contradiction in the Bible. You can show contradictory interpretations, but that does not mean the contradiction is in the Bible, when it is in your interpretation.
Then I invite you to consider the following. Question: Who was the father of Shelah?

Genesis says Arphaxad was the father of Shelah

Genesis 10:24
24 And Arphaxad begat Shelah; and Shelah begat Eber.

Whereas Luke says Cainan was the father of Shelah,

Luke 3:35-36
35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Shelah,

36 Which was the son of Cainan,
which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,


Please note, no interpretation is needed. A simple straight forward reading is all that's necessary. And the same can be said of the age at which Jehoiachin began his reign in Jerusalem.



2 Chronicles says he was 8 years old

2CH 36:9
Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

Whereas 2 Kings says he was 18 years old

2KI 24:8
Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.



Now, are these contradictions? Of course they are. Cainan is not Arphaxad, and eighteen is not eight. Do they require interpretation? Of course not. Cainan Arphaxad, and eighteen eight.


.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14002
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Thinking of explanations

Post #12

Post by William »

[Replying to nobspeople in post #1]
For 'discussion':
If god exists, it allowed these contradictions to permeate its book, so the believers have to work around them.
Given the premise that 'god' is referring to the general Christian idea of 'god'.
Why?
As a means by which to gauge those using that system of belief.
What's the point for such a 'loving and all knowing' being to sow discourse and cast doubt on its own story?
If god can prevent it but does not, then the reason will be that god has a use for it...even if we have to make educated guesses in order to attempt to answer the 'why' question.
Help make sense of this senseless act.
That assumes an 'afterwards' position and we cannot yet suppose that we have reached that point.
How the question needs to read is along the lines of;
Q: Help me make sense of something I see no sense in."
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?
Or - the god is dealing with misinformation regarding itself and allows for that misinformation to help gauge those using that system of belief as the only information they themselves gauge god with.

To cominate and control the masses, is an indirect way in which to influence god for as long as allowed to do so.

Perhaps there is something to the 'gauging' the god does in the way that god does so - a special something which identifies those who actually know god from those who know only misinformation about god.
Perhaps the god seeks to see itself within all those being gauged...and the 'special something' is that thing it seeks, been found...

But to suggest "there is no god at all", jumps to conclusions...

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8487
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Re: Thinking of explanations

Post #13

Post by Tcg »

William wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 7:59 pm But to suggest "there is no god at all", jumps to conclusions...
As does the suggestion, "there is a god."


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14002
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Thinking of explanations

Post #14

Post by William »

[Replying to Tcg in post #13]
OP wrote:For 'discussion':
If god exists, ...
That is the premise...questions then asked which suggest that god does not exist, would have to be rhetorical.

So if the questions are rhetorical and thus require no answer ... then I am happy to oblige.
Until this is known by me, I am content enough to contribute my answers.

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8487
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Re: Thinking of explanations

Post #15

Post by Tcg »

[Replying to Tcg in post #13]

Of course, jumping to the conclusion that some specific God, YHWH for example, sends messages to individuals, or any one given individual, is pretty much the top of the rung of jumping to conclusions.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

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 #16

Post by nobspeople »

[Replying to William in post #12]
Perhaps there is something to the 'gauging' the god does in the way that god does so - a special something which identifies those who actually know god from those who know only misinformation about god.
Perhaps. Or maybe it's just bad writing.
But to suggest "there is no god at all", jumps to conclusions...
There are many other reason to suggest there is no [modern] christian god other than these contradictions.
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 #17

Post by TRANSPONDER »

1213 wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 8:39 am
Miles wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 2:37 pm
1213 wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 8:59 am
nobspeople wrote: Tue Apr 26, 2022 1:03 pm ...
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?
I think this whole question is based on false premise that makes the whole thing irrelevant.
Are you saying that if god exists the Bible can't contain any contradictions?
No. I say that i don't think you can really prove there is any real contradiction in the Bible. You can show contradictory interpretations, but that does not mean the contradiction is in the Bible, when it is in your interpretation.
I have claimed before that the discussion is done; the problem is getting the results accepted. Take evolution. We know this is massively denied and we know why - for reasons of religious Faith in a dogma or doctrine and for no other reason. In fact it is specifically taking a literal interpretation of Genesis and making it look like one can be a Christian or believe Genesis is myth, but not both.

Which is wrong because many Christians accept the case for evolution. The point is that it isn't a case of Interpretation but denial of compelling evidence for reasons of the dogma of Bible Inerrancy. As an analogy of this analogy :D Flat earthists can and do deny the compelling evidence (and can say it's a matter of Interpretation) and we (rationalists) can only point to the mass of evidence and the absurdity of global science all conspiring to lie.

That's why the case for evolution is sound and the claim for Creation is invalid. Denial, manipulation of the media and trying to push a doctrine even at political level is not a valid argument but dirty tricks.

So what about Bible contradictions? I have already laboured the need for real humbdingers and not the evasive tosh of One angel or two or whether Joshua had 10,000 men or 100,000. I see these as Strawman arguments (inadvertent perhaps) wherein the Bible apologists can trot out piffling problems that can be easily explained and thus (it is implied 8-) ) they can all be explained.

No way.
.
I hate to keep trotting out the weary warhorses, but the Nativity is the touchstone case. It proves a real contradiction with Matthew and Luke telling irreconcilable stories. One has to be false and (on evidence) neither are really convincing or credible.

This is NOT explainable; it is a matter of historical (and internal) evidence and not "Interpretation". To deny it is fabrication is simply as denialist as Flat Earthism (1).

As a touchstone, this sets the scene for other Matthew-Luke discrepancies, and the 2nd worst just happens to be the resurrections. :) After that the declaration in the synagogue, the haul of fish, all the Q document (sermon) material, the penitent thief, Antipas and Jesus and ..most of the rest of the Book...is overkill of an already dead donkey.

Which doesn't stop the Believers claiming that there are no real contradictions :roll: Ok most people don't know; not even Bible skeptics, it seems. Most know of the Judas' death contradiction, but did any notice that Matthew has the Lord's prayer taught at the sermon on the mount, but (in Luke) for the first time, when they all set out for Jerusalem? This is evidence of Q imported into the original gospel, and a debunk of the most important prayer in Christianity. But then, The nativities contradiction debunks the most important festival. O:)

The evidence/ case is there, but it is overcoming oblivion or denial that is the problem. Ah gotta dream terday....that these fascinating online investigation videos (into WWII or true crimes) will also get into Gospel contradictions, assuming there is no imposed block so as not to offend the Faithful. Or in the same way the fact that the earth is not flat and we evolved over 2 billion years, and not all done in one week, is going to be put into the public consciousness along with 'The gospel story would not hold up in court but be tossed out on the grounds of irreconcilably contradictory testimony'.

(1) I have touched on some of the evidence, but I'll set out out the entire debunk if asked

User avatar
1213
Savant
Posts: 11342
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
Location: Finland
Has thanked: 312 times
Been thanked: 357 times

Re: Thinking of explanations

Post #18

Post by 1213 »

Miles wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 6:16 pm ...Question: Who was the father of Shelah?

Genesis says Arphaxad was the father of Shelah
Genesis 10:24
24 And Arphaxad begat Shelah; and Shelah begat Eber.
Whereas Luke says Cainan was the father of Shelah,
Luke 3:35-36
35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Shelah,
36 Which was the son of Cainan,
which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
Maybe the other has one name missing, but it really makes no contradiction, because grand son is a son also. Contradiction would be if Genesis would say there was no Cainan. Now it is possible that it is just missing from our modern translation, for example because we have found only incomplete version of the original text. To call that a contradiction is in my opinion too bold interpretation. But I can admit that they may be parts missing from our modern versions.
Miles wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 6:16 pm... And the same can be said of the age at which Jehoiachin began his reign in Jerusalem.

2 Chronicles says he was 8 years old
2CH 36:9
Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.
Translation I normally use has here 18, so that seems to be a translation error.

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Thinking of explanations

Post #19

Post by Miles »

1213 wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 10:37 am
Miles wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 6:16 pm ...Question: Who was the father of Shelah?

Genesis says Arphaxad was the father of Shelah
Genesis 10:24
24 And Arphaxad begat Shelah; and Shelah begat Eber.
Whereas Luke says Cainan was the father of Shelah,
Luke 3:35-36
35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Shelah,
36 Which was the son of Cainan,
which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
Maybe the other has one name missing, but it really makes no contradiction, because grand son is a son also. Contradiction would be if Genesis would say there was no Cainan. Now it is possible that it is just missing from our modern translation, for example because we have found only incomplete version of the original text. To call that a contradiction is in my opinion too bold interpretation. But I can admit that they may be parts missing from our modern versions.
My mistake. I assumed you knew what the terms "begat" and "son of" meant.
Miles wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 6:16 pm... And the same can be said of the age at which Jehoiachin began his reign in Jerusalem.

2 Chronicles says he was 8 years old
2CH 36:9
Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.
Translation I normally use has here 18, so that seems to be a translation error.
Which stands in contradiction to what I normally use, which is 8, so that seems to be a translation error. :mrgreen:


.

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 #20

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Quite apart from giving example of excuses, explanations and rewriting the Bible to make it say what is wanted rather than what it says, the need and the Why this is done, is blindingly obvious - Faith makes the Faithful come up with any excuse, evasion or justification rather than admit that they have been deluded.

I was wondering today (after watching a video on a crazy claim involving Flying saucers, werewolves and cattle - mutilations and observing how these disparate lunacies get wodged together into one cult) whether to compare belief in crop - circles with religion and reviewing how the cult evolved with another cult: Scientology, and how that was turned into a religion simply to block any scientific question by making it a Faith. Tax exemption perhaps being an extra benefit beside the initial motivation.

That is also a cult that we can trace from a failed sci -Fi story through pseudo science and finally to a Religion and very profitable, too despite the evidence of it being a looney fraud being all there for anyone to see, just as the collapse of credibility of crop -circles ix there in the record, but the Believers simply deny everything.

This Faith -based denial is not at all limited to religions, but the cults and pseudo-sciences and the way they trade on Faith and rely on denial is absolutely the same. Indeed the UFO -thing has come very close to becoming a cult or even religion on a number of occasions.

Post Reply