A simple---but serious---question

[Athetotheist]

There are numerous god-men who died and rose from death in stories predating the time of Jesus. Considering the notable differences between the gospel accounts, and particularly the differences between the accounts of Jesus's supposed resurrection, here's a question for gospel apologists to think seriously about:

There are four resurrection accounts about Jesus in the Christian gospels. If the exact same accounts, with the exact same differences, were written about Osiris, Tammuz, Attis or any such god-man other than Jesus, would Christian apologists find all of those accounts believable?

And if they wouldn't find all of them believable, would they find any of them believable?

[brunumb]

If Jesus is telling them not to take two staves, why doesn't he say that when he does tell them not to take two tunics [Luke 9:3]?

Because often we express the same thing in different ways. For example one might say "you look great ....I love your hat" and go on to say "... and I just adore your shoes they really suit you". Of course there was always the option of saying "I love your shoes too" but people rarely respond to two non-identical compliments "If "I love your hat" meant "I love your hat" why did you tell me you adore my shoes?"

On the other hand teaching or giving instruction is quite different from inconsequential casual conversation, so I don't think your example is valid.

[JehovahsWitness]

On the other hand teaching or giving instruction is quite different from inconsequential casual conversation, so I don't think your example is valid.

WHAT IS THE AD HOC FALLACY ?

Ad hoc fallacy is a fallacious rhetorical strategy in which a person presents a new explanation – that is unjustified or simply unreasonable – of why their original belief or hypothesis is correct after evidence that contradicts the previous explanation has emerged.

Something doesnt become a CONTRADICTION because it's difficult to understand, it is a CONTRADICTION because it is proven to be IMPOSSIBLE. The point is not invalidated by a new rule that "teaching or giving instruction" requires a new less flexible method of expression. The teacher's main aim it that his instruction be understood by his audience, there is no way to prove that this was not the case, even it it were relevant to the issue of CONTRADICTIONS (which is isnt).

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

LOGIC , FALLACIES and ... EVIDENCE and ...

[1213]

...I would say that the Tao Te Ching's greatest wisdom is probably its emphasis on humility.

"The Tao is infinite and eternal.
Why is it eternal?
It was never born,
so it can never die.
Why is it infinite?
It has no desires for itself,
so it is present for all beings.

The Master stays behind,
and so is ahead,
detached from all things,
thus one with them.
Having let go of self,
The Master is perfectly fulfilled."
--Tao Te Ching 7

Thank you. Now I would like to know, why do you think that is wise?

Humility leads to wisdom.

Do you not think it's wise?

It is interesting how you understand that text. But any way, I think humility is good, even if would not lead to wisdom.

[1213]

...
Jehoiachin was ...

Jehoiachin was eight years old[/color] when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem… —2 Chronicles 36:9

_____________

It would be nice to know, why some translations have eight in that, and some have eighteen. Apparently, the number can be translated both ways.

Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death. —II Samuel 6:23

But the king took the two sons of Rizpah…and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul. —II Samuel 21:8_____________

This is also interesting, the translation that I normally use says, if translated to English, "…and Michal, the five sons of Saul’s daughter who was married with Adriel…"

The woman married to Adriel was Saul’s other daughter Merab and the five sons were her sons. So, it seems there is some misplaced commas in some translations.

2 Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri. —2 Chronicles 22:2

26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel. —2KI 8:26
_____________

Actually, in this case it may be that there is an error, at least in the copy and translation, not necessarily in the original.

“…Several of the letters in the Hebrew script are strikingly similar in appearance, and such is the case with the letters which represent twenty-two and forty-two. A very slight stroke of the pen could blur the distinction…. …In addition, several ancient translations cast doubt upon the forty-two figure. Most manuscripts of the Septuagint have the number twenty, and one has twenty-two. Twenty-two is also reflected in the Syriac and the Arabic versions. Accordingly, some of the more current English translations have changed forty-two in 2 Chronicles 22:2 to twenty-two (NASB, NIV, ESV).”
https://www.christiancourier.com/articl ... aziahs-age

Luckily the correct number can be found by reading the whole book. But I understand if you reject God and don’t love your neighbor because of this.

16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. —Matthew 1:16

23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, —Luke 3:23

_____________

Is it not possible that the full name of Joseph’s father was Jacob Heli?

I think the difference between Matthew and Luke comes form that Matthew is speaking of “The book of the generation”, which is not necessarily same as direct list of ancestors, but list of important generations. The generation of some person may be longer than other persons generation. For example, the king of some country may live 50 years and end of that time he gets son, while some other person may already have grandchild in that time.

11And a voice came from heaven, saying, “You are My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.” —Mark 1:11 [voice is speaking to Jesus]

17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. —Matthew 3:17 [voice is speaking to others]
.

Is it not possible He told them both?

[benchwarmer]

Are there any translations of the above passage which read "22 years old"? And if so what can we reasonably conclude as to the origin of the alternative reading?

Various translations
https://biblehub.com/2_chronicles/22-2.htm

Of course there are. What can we conclude? Probably a bad translation or a purposefully wrong translation in order to remove a contradiction. That's possible right?

I love how at the end of the day, any contradiction found, no matter how damning to the text, always has the out "copyist error". If you are willing to concede there are copyist errors in the Bible, then how can you trust ANY of it? How do you know that the central message was not corrupted early on and people have just been copying the wrong words every since? Possible right?

It's really a lost cause trying to argue errors and contradictions with apologists. However, it's a useful exercise for everyone else reading along. They can then do their own research and find the rather large number of errors and contradictions that must be apologized for in various ways.

If nothing else, it gets people to actually compare texts and wonder why they might be so different. There are more logical and likely answers than "copyist error", but no apologist will ever concede to those.

[Athetotheist]

If Jesus is telling them not to take two staves, why doesn't he say that when he does tell them not to take two tunics [Luke 9:3]?

Because often we express the same thing in different ways. For example one might say "you look great ....I love your hat" and go on to say "... and I just adore your shoes they really suit you". Of course there was always the option of saying "I love your shoes too" but people rarely respond to two non-identical compliments "If "I love your hat" meant "I love your hat" why did you tell me you adore my shoes?"

"I love your hat" and "I adore your hat" mean the same. "No staff and "nothing except" a staff" are opposites.

And we still have Mary Magdalene's inconsistent behavior to deal with.

[JehovahsWitness]

If Jesus is telling them not to take two staves, why doesn't he say that when he does tell them not to take two tunics [Luke 9:3]?

Because often we express the same thing in different ways. For example one might say "you look great ....I love your hat" and go on to say "... and I just adore your shoes they really suit you". Of course there was always the option of saying "I love your shoes too" but people rarely respond to two non-identical compliments "If "I love your hat" meant "I love your hat" why did you tell me you adore my shoes?"

"I love your hat" and "I adore your hat" mean the same. "No staff and "nothing except" a staff" are opposites.

Not necessarily. That would depend on how one interprets the verses.


JW

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

CONTRADICTIONS , SEQUENCING and ...EASTER CHALLENGES*

* harmonizing the resurrection narratives

[JehovahsWitness]

Are there any translations of the above passage which read "22 years old"? And if so what can we reasonably conclude as to the origin of the alternative reading?

Various translations
https://biblehub.com/2_chronicles/22-2.htm

Of course there are. What can we conclude? Probably a bad translation or a purposefully wrong translation in order to remove a contradiction. That's possible right?

Did anybody force you to raise the question of translational errors or do you honestly believe looking at the evidence that is a legitimate possibility?

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

CONTRADICTIONS , SEQUENCING and ...EASTER CHALLENGES*

* harmonizing the resurrection narratives

[JehovahsWitness]

If you are willing to concede there are copyist errors in the Bible, then how can you trust ANY of it? How do you know that the central message was not corrupted early on and people have just been copying the wrong words every since?

The issue of trust is a interesting one of course but not one we are discussing at the moment. The ONLY issue I am willing to address at the moment is that of CONTRADICTIONS . As in, did the (original) writer record two facts that are IMPOSSIBLE To reconcile.

The answer to all of the examples thus far provided is, no.



JW




RELATED POSTS


What is it called when one has been proven wrong but jump to another issue instead of conceding?
viewtopic.php?p=1058581#p1058581

[benchwarmer]

If you are willing to concede there are copyist errors in the Bible, then how can you trust ANY of it? How do you know that the central message was not corrupted early on and people have just been copying the wrong words every since?

The issue of trust is a interesting one of course but not one we are discussing at the moment. The ONLY issue I am willing to address at the moment is that of CONTRADICTIONS . As in, did the (original) writer record two facts that are IMPOSSIBLE To reconcile.

The answer to all of the examples thus far provided is, no.

The answer is 'no' only because you are assuming there was no issue to begin with. Unless you have the original documents (which you don't or you would be wildly famous) you are stuck with the fact that the copies we do have my be in error and the original may have been corrupted. You brought up "copyist errors", I'm simply showing the side effect of doing that. i.e. you just shot yourself in the foot.

Anything and everything is possible to reconcile if one invents possibilities. It's called rigging the game so that there could never be a contradiction. There is no point showing someone with this attitude any contradiction regardless of how opposed the 2 (or more) positions are. If a text said "Jesus was a man" and another said "Jesus was a woman", apologists would just yell "copyist error" while never having the original text to actually know. They just assume it MUST be all true first, then do whatever tap dancing is necessary to attempt to ignore all problems.

You can keep saying there are no errors or contradictions, but I can assure you it's unconvincing. Once you've seen how the sausage is made, you can't unsee it.