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]

[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.

I for one never claimed otherwise. However, as I said, implausibility and impossibility are not synonyms and it is the impossibility that establishes true contradictions. Further, if implausibillity is presented as a counter argument to presented argumentation, said "implausibillity" should be proven with supporting evidence. If for example one claims it is "implausible" that Jesus chased the money changers from the temple twice, one should ready to present evidence to support this conclusion or be ready for their conclusion to be dismissed.

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens

JW

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 51 by JehovahsWitness]

Shifting the burden of proof again. The burden is on you to demonstrate your claim is more plausible.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 51 by JehovahsWitness]

Shifting the burden of proof again. The burden is on you to demonstrate your claim is more plausible.

I haven't made any claims but if I do I will be sure to keep that in mind.

Best Regards,

JW

[Mithrae]

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

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

If only you would: You're trying to deny that Matthew said there were 14 generations from David to the exile (Jeconiah), which is exactly what is written in the text. You're trying to claim that he 'meant' there were 14 names in his list, something which can be found only in your imagination.


But again, instructive as discussion of this particularly unequivocal contradiction has been, it's not really the point of Difflugia's topic: What are your thoughts on the fact that by the kind of rationalizations in play here, literally everything ever written is 'inerrant'? When someone writes that there are twenty miles from New York to Los Angeles, they're not wrong; they're just talking about certain particular miles which they find interesting.

[JehovahsWitness]

.... You're trying to deny that Matthew said there were 14 generations from David to the exile (Jeconiah),

I dont know where you got tha idea. I am making a statement of fact, the "all" of Matthew precedes no explicit statement of being absolute beyond the perimeters of list. If he did we would have no issue but he does not. That is a fact.

What we can make of this fact is speculation, but speculation makes shaky ground for establishing a contradiction.



JW

[bjs]

[Replying to bjs]

If the Gospel of John were the only account, then I could understand why it would be intellectually honest to accept the most logical interpretation of the text. The problem with adopting this approach with multiple accounts is that accepting the most logical interpretation for each account results in apparent discrepancies which must be explained. From there, we are tasked with comparing the plausibility and reliability of the proposed harmonizations as explanations for these discrepancies. If the proposed harmonizations are determined to be implausible or unreliable, then intellectual honesty requires us to consider the possibility that our initial interpretation of the accounts might be in error.

Yet in this case the harmonization is so simplistic it is hard to consider rejecting it to have anything to do with intellectual honesty.

More to the point for me, if it could be shown that Jesus cleansed this Temple only once and that John told recorded the story near the beginning of his Gospel while the synoptic writers put the story near the end of their Gospels then that would not bother me in the slightest. For that to be a contradiction, we would have to assume that the Gospels were written in chronological order. The Gospels themselves do not make that claim. I know that modern western biographies are normally organized chronologically, but that does not mean that ancient Middle Eastern gospels followed that pattern. They could be organized topically or organized with a theological purpose. One of the earliest statements about the Gospel of Mark was that his record of events was not in order.

So, for my part at least, intellectual integrity requires saying that the proposed dis-harmonization is implausible.

[Difflugia]

I dont know where you got tha idea. I am making a statement of fact, the "all" of Matthew precedes no explicit statement of being absolute beyond the perimeters of list. If he did we would have no issue but he does not. That is a fact.

What we can make of this fact is speculation, but speculation makes shaky ground for establishing a contradiction.

This is one of the reasons for my original question. The extent that context is rejected and the latitude offered to the much-maligned "eisegesis" in inerrancy apologetics is such that in any other context, it would be ridiculed to scorn by even the most self-serving of exegetes.

I would think of all people, one of Jehovah's Witnesses would recognize the importance of divining the actual meaning behind a text, even if the conclusion is uncomfortable or even dangerous. Instead, you have just literally claimed that holding a text to its clear meaning is speculation because it otherwise might call inerrancy into question. How should one of Jehovah's Witnesses respond when actual lives are at stake?

Therefore my judgment is that we dont trouble those from among the Gentiles who turn to God, but that we write to them that they abstain from the pollution of idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood."

If it's speculation to think that when Matthew says "all," he actually means all, then why is it somehow beyond speculation to dogmatically assert that James and Leviticus prohibit uses of blood beyond literal eating? Does preserving inerrancy justify a more flexible attitude toward the text than preserving lives?

It seems to me that the whole gay marriage thing could be resolved with a bit of creative exegesis. The only references to homosexuality that aren't ambiguous even by biblical standards are in Leviticus 18 and 20, prohibiting "a man lying with a man as with a woman." Well, it seems to me that it's literally impossible to do so, because men are missing the right plumbing to lie with exactly as one does with a woman and it would be the merest speculation to suggest that God meant anything more than that. He probably just meant that as a reminder that he designed men and women so that it was impossible to do so. In fact, I'm going to say that's what "the evidence supports."

How does one justify a different exegetical standard for inerrancy than for virtually any other exegetical exercise imaginable?

[bjs]

[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.

Matthew was making a theological point with his genealogy. Fourteen was the number of King David (in Hebrew D V D was 4 6 4 = 14). Matthew was connecting Jesus to his Jews roots while at the same time, to the mind of his original audience, shouting David! David! David!

No, its not accurate by the way we think today. But when we impose a modern standard on an ancient writing then the flaw is not with the ancient writing.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 57 by 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. One doesnt have to be religious to understand how language works*.


JW


* This is not an indirect attack on you or anyone on this forum it is just a general statement as to the limits of language which have a direct effect in whether one can establish a contradiction or not.

[Difflugia]

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?