Contradiction and Truth
I was brought up to believe that the Bible was infallible and True. Then as a young adult I discovered a website concerning numerous contradictions in the bible.
Can something that contains contradictions be true and if so what does that mean?
If you have two statements that contradict each other how can you know which is true.
I feel that strong contradictions completely undermine the bible and that it is hard to rescue truth from it because of this dilemma.
A weak contradiction like "John is a peaceful man but occasionally loses his temper is probably possible." Where two claims are not complete incompatible.
Exposing contradictions seems a tool for exploration and truth in philosophy.
Can something that contains contradictions be true and if so what does that mean?
If you have two statements that contradict each other how can you know which is true.
I feel that strong contradictions completely undermine the bible and that it is hard to rescue truth from it because of this dilemma.
A weak contradiction like "John is a peaceful man but occasionally loses his temper is probably possible." Where two claims are not complete incompatible.
Exposing contradictions seems a tool for exploration and truth in philosophy.
Comments (71)
Just an FYI, the Catholic teaching is that the Bible is inherent in its purpose which is the salvation of souls. It is not a history or scientific text. It does not need to be literally true, to be true to its purpose.
From pope Paul vi encyclical. Dei Verbum
Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind"
I spent my whole childhood having the bible read to me everyday for 17 years.
I am here referring to explicit contradictions in the bible of which there are many well documented.
Some contradictions are ethical contradictions such as It says people should not be punished for the sins of their fathers and then it contradicts that. Other contradictions simply disagree on a sequence of events, who was involved and how old they were.
I am discussing claims of truth here and infallibility. So for example this link highlights all the contradictory versus on whether or not God can be seen.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/seen.html
"No man hath seen God at any time". John 1:18, 1 John 4:12
The Lord talked with you [the people of Israel] face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire. Deuteronomy" 5:4
I don't see how you can derive any notion of truth from the degree of contradictions seen in the bible. However I would agree that people can live lives with contradiction and based on fantasy if you want to defend an allegorical version of religion. But a bomb disposal expert and such like could not afford to be given such contradictory instructions.
But what concerns me here is when you do have a contradiction how you maintain or discover the truth. In science I think they can test a hypothesis by empirical means. So evidence will prove or disprove a claim.
Logical analysis can show that two statements are incompatible but not necessarily which is true. but not all contradictory claims can be resolved by empirical evidence.
Personally I feel happy to reject something once I find a logical inconsistency or contradiction inhering and would need a lot of persuasion to think otherwise. I would not take a Pascal type of wager on something which was illogical. that is to say I would not take a risk on or put faith in an incoherence.
(On another note can a computation contain a contradiction?)
Yes, literally contradictory. Oh dear, God screwed up. Woe is you!
Look, if you don't want to believe that the Bible is the word of God, that's fine by me. But if you want to build a case against the Bible (for whatever reason) you should come up with something more substantial and compelling than a few contradictions.
Personally, I don't believe the Bible is the word of god. The Bible is the word of serious people who believed in god, and were invested in the whole holiness project. For that matter, I don't believe all that much in god, either. I have nothing against people who take the Bible seriously and believe in god. Many hands were involved in writing the Bible -- both OT and NT, so we should not be at all surprised that there are contradictions. Maybe even factual errors! We weren't there; most of the Biblical writers weren't there either. They were, in most cases, writing about times gone by before they were born.
I mean the Bible has many elements - historical claims, moral claims, scientific claims, etc.
Isn't it sensible to evaluate each category separately rather than condemn the entire book because of a falsehood in one of them.
Also, as @Bitter Crank said the Bible is the work of many authors. Some could've made mistakes but that doesn't mean everything in it is a lie.
[I]"One rotten apple spoils the whole bunch''[/i] is a very dangerous logical fallacy called hasty generalization.
But I understand your concern because some claim the Bible is infallible and the literal truth transmitted from God. If that's what you disagree with then you're right it can't be, as some would like, ''infallible''.
(From Kalama Sutta)
- In the above quote, the Buddha is talking to some people who live near his home country. These people, the Kalamas, are confused by the multiplicity of teachings that they hear. Many teachers arrive, who extoll their own teachings and disparage the teachings of others. And the Kalamas want to know, “Which of these venerable brahmans and contemplatives are speaking the truth, and which ones are lying?”
I think the key teaching is when the Buddha says, "when you know for yourselves... ". In other words, you need to determine right and wrong, logical and illogical, fallible and infallible, etc, all on your own so as to determine which path is best for you to walk.
Like art. Typically entirely fictional, but often shining a useful light on truths about the human condition.
And the truth may be that we don't really want the truth, but rather a story which fits comfortably within our flavor of mind. So for example, if a person is mechanically minded by nature they are likely to reach for a story which paints all of reality as being mechanical in nature too, because then that person feels at home.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
It seems right to say that they completely undermine infallibility. Rather as a proof of contradiction undermines the truth of (at least one of) the premises from which it proceeds. But we already know that Jesus spoke in parables, and that parables are not intended to be taken as literally true, but more as thought experiments.
I used to command my two year-old daughter not to cross the road without holding my hand, but I was surprised and somewhat dismayed to meet the local doctor's daughter aged 14, still following the same commandment from her father. (This is both literally true, and a parable, and might illustrate that an apparent contradiction may be simply the result of having to speak to all people of all ages at the same time.)
But we know, of our own age, that even the holiest and most inspired of men are fallible, so why should we believe, like two-year-olds of their father, that our forebears were? And why should we accept or reject the whole on the basis of the least imperfection? Morality and spirituality are not logic and mathematics.
It is not a few contradictions it is numerous contradictions on key doctrines which make it totally incoherent.
Should people be punished for the sins of their fathers? The Bible gives conflicting answers definitely Yes and definitely No.
Should people be killed definitely yes and definitely no.
Is salvation permanent? Both yes and No.
Is marriage a good thing ? Yes or No
Is God the author of confusion? Definitely yes and definitely no.
How many examples do you want? On top of the "contradictions" criticism there is the cruelty and genocide criticism and much more.
But I do not think it is possible to claim you understand the bible when faced with stark contradictions if you claim this I think it is simply a personal fantasy equivalent to someone saying how they understand that a triangle can be a circle.
I am not criticizing the bible per se but asking how you can derive truths from contradiction and asking why you shouldn't reject something highly contradictory.
I think you can select single inspirational verses from the bible but then these in context will be contradicted elsewhere. As someone who grew up in a hell and damnation religious environment I am not happy to face years of threat and intimidation based on a highly suspect definitely incoherent and contradictory text.
The problem is religion has been the source of atrocities as well as more positive things. If something is wrong and inspires cruelty then I think the problems need highlighting.
What I would be attacking hear is biblical literalism. But even if one is not a biblical literalist there are still problematic verses in the bible.
I think you have it right, the bible contradicts itself many times and you are correct to be skeptical. It isnt really the best book or among the best books in any of the topics it covers. It get science, history, morality and wisdom wrong more often than not and there are much better books covering those areas.
Just becuase the bible is a bunch of primitive nonsense doesnt mean you have to abandon belief in god, but its a pretty good reason to be very skeptical of religions. Without that early childhood brain washing you grew up with, nobody with any kind of mental faculty would take that book seriously. (Except as a historical footnote maybe)
I agree, but...
I first have to ask you if we are going also going to be highlighting the mass slaughter of millions by explicitly atheist regimes in the 20th century. If yes, then I would accept your proposal as being a function of reason. If not, then I would define it as mere ideology.
Next, let's keep in mind that religion is the largest cultural event in human history, and thus contains within itself both the best and worst of what humanity is. So a formula such as religion=atrocities would be essentially meaningless, just as a formula like human=atrocities contributes little to a useful conversation.
I think people have an inclination towards laziness. They want those leaders to do everything for them. But as king Solomon says in proverbs, "a person gains wisdom for themselves" (paraphrasing). This means everybody has to develop the capacity to understand life in themselves.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
Yes, some people will suffer the consequences of those they're associated with. Those who can avoid it, should and often do. It's all a part of being in situations and relations.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
Some endeavours e.g. political, could not avoid conflict/violence. Some e.g. religious, could avoid conflict/violence (maybe not always but the propagators often attempted the path of least conflict/violence as best as they could).
Quoting Andrew4Handel
Those who maintain discipline retain their merits. Those who do not, lose theirs. It also applies to fitness and exercise.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
Marriage is for those who understand companionship. Those who fill their relationships with negatives (fears, lust, greed, egotism, unhealthy dependence, etc) should not be married. People come together to help each other become better by overcoming personal limitations with the help of the companion, not to drag each other into personal muck.
Neither God nor the bible's teachings stop humans from being and doing what they choose to. The prophets and leaders of the bible were more intelligent than the average of the masses who received those teachings. They seemed to understand the implications of their endeavours (psychologically, socially, politically, etc). For example, when God told Moses that He would send him on the mission, Moses had the presence of mind to question God on his own weakness (stammering) and the strength of the idea (since even the egyptians could perform magic and were stronger politically than the israelites).
Later on, Jesus simplifies the ten commandments into two edicts (something which the religious leaders of the time considered to be heresy of the highest order):
Jesus also taught that the laws were made for man not vice-versa. Unfortunately, this is something we're yet to learn. We're not slaves to our laws (or doctrines), instead, the laws are our servants. They do our bidding. Laws have no power over human will because it's human will which upholds the laws. The ideal is that we should keep transforming laws in such ways that uphold human unity, harmony and freedom. Unfortunately, we are not ideal humans and it takes a while for ideal teachings to attain their respective applications in human activities.
None of the prophets considered their predecessors teachings to be absolute. Instead, they diligently interpreted them with respect to their own circumstances instead of using them as a rigid and unyielding codex. I believe we should learn to do the same. For example, in the mosaic era, God teaches the israelites which animals to eat and which not to. Later on, with Simon Peter, God teaches that everything is suitable as long as God has determined it. Basically, it teaches the need for dealing with situations on a case by case basis according to the merits of the individual aspects instead of a blanket assumption.
This what the bible actually says in Exodus 20:5
" I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me."
These people are being deliberately punished not suffering by association to someone else's bad deeds.
But then in Ezekiel 18;20 it claims:
"The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. "
There are many more passages in the Bible on the same topic with contradictory claims. So it is the same contradictory claims repeated several times leaving no way to chose which doctrine is true and no real ambiguity but just direct contradictions. An action can not be justified by citing one scripture without being undermined by another scripture.
The contradictions in the bible are real contradictions that cannot be resolved.
Your idea that you understand the bible more than X is simply a delusion in my opinion. I think it is impossible to understand something that does not make sense.
It is a common (psychologically manipulative) tactic to claim that people who have a differing opinion on the bible than you have not read it in the right way. If I had read Harry Potter everyday for 17 years every day it is certain that I would know a lot about the book. Contradictions are an important source of biblical critique and questioning the meaning of the bible. Ignoring contradictions is gross ignorance or denial in my opinion.
You don't have to be an atheist or ruthless logician to see glaring problems and I have highlighted the the main problem of completely incompatible and contradictory claims and I am only criticizing biblical literalism and truth claims here not alternative analysis of biblical meaning.
This thread is explicitly about contradictions and truth. If you want to highlight contradictory beliefs and untruths in atheist, secular and communist regimes you are free to do so.
I mentioned atrocities as being a strong incentive to critically assess religion but that can apply to any belief.
You cannot successfully defend religious atrocities by pointing out other atrocities. Two wrongs don't make a right.
However I have personal experience here that is relevant. I was preached to about hell every week in church in Gospel meetings. I also went to church up to 5 times a week and I was told homosexuality was evil and I am also gay.
So after having been forced to sit through so much religion being made to live in fear of hell and damnation and being made to feel awful and paranoid about my sexuality and now having faced life long problems it is very valid and important to me to ascertain the truth of religious claims that are threatening and condemning me.
On the other hand if another doctrine like science does not claim to be infallible it can not be charged with a making such claims. Science can make false claims and damaging claims but it won't or can't defend them on the grounds of infallibility and it can discard such claims (eventually). So I have focused on religions because they are the main source of infallibility claims and make some of the biggest most life altering claims.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
Yes, there is no squaring this circle. The two verses are contradictory. But you know the Bible is a collection of texts from different authors and editors, and composed at different times and places. One could observe that the Ezekiel text displays a more generous system of judgement than the Exodus verse. One of the flaws of fundamentalist literalism is that it assigns a single voice (god) to the entire text. That assumption sets up the reader for trouble when he compares texts. There is no contradiction if the text was composed by various people over time. If God dictated the story, then there are big problems. People have to decide for themselves what it was.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
By all means, attack Biblical literalism which, you know, is the fault of the reader, not the text.
Reading the Bible cover to cover 10 times might be worthwhile, but it will not, in itself, instruct one in hermeneutics, the branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation, especially of the Bible or literary texts.
I think I've mentioned once or twice, here and there, that I don't believe the Bible is the Word of God. I understand it to be a sacred narrative, composed over time under varying circumstances. It was not composed over an expanse of time from Adam to Revelations. The book of Exodus wasn't composed during the exodus period. Exodus is a story - a narrative. So is Matthew. The people who composed, edited, and recorded the narratives were always dealing with current conditions, current issues, current thinking.
That's not a contradiction. Just because God was all up in someone's face doesn't mean they saw him.
You must be aware that some Christians believe in the Hell Doctrine?
What I am concerned with is how someone trying to be a Christian could know that they were doing the right thing to avoid hell and similar dilemmas.
I am aware of the wide variety of approaches to the bible. Obviously the biggest concern is minimizing harm from fundamentalists in all walks of life.
The wider issue though is what the role of contradiction is in truth seeking.
It is true that someone may not have seen God but they may have spoken to him however there are many verses where people actual saw God and didn't just speak to him.
I think the problem of interpretation does not have a solution though. It does say in the bible that "God is not the author of confusion" if people do not find the bible makes sense or can have multiple meanings or interpretations then that is a confusion.
I am happy to reject the bible as an authority because of these issues. But I am also happy to reject any claims on this grounds.
As well you should not! I grew up in a mainline Protestant (Methodist) home, where the Bible was taken seriously. I went to Sunday school, church, believed, etc. I was homosexual and this caused no end of internal conflict for a long time. I was stuck between God saying homosexuality is an abomination and being myself that abomination. There are three solutions; I used all three. The first is to just ignore the Bible and the church. Cruise the parks, go home with gay guys from the bar, all that, and ignore the religious message I was raised with. The second approach is hermeneutics: Ancient semitic cultures did not have a concept of "sexual orientation". People were supposed to marry the opposite sex, period. (I won't review the whole hermeneutics thing.) That helped; it enabled me to be active in religious groups where gays were accepted. Back in the 1970s that was in gay religious organizations. The third approach is rejection: I am gay and good, the Bible is wrong, so be it. If that's how the churches are thinking, then to hell with it. This approach works too. It can be difficult for dyed in the wool Christians to reject their religious system, but it can be done.
My siblings (all older than me, I'm 72, the oldest one still living is 80) are pretty much against gay people being accepted. They are mostly pretty conservative Republicans, to boot. They accept me, but that doesn't generalize to homosexuals in general, and how much they accept me is open to question.
Now I look at Christendom and the Bible from the outside in, much more than the inside out, and that's much better.
Claims of inerrancy are made in different ways by different people so you can treat each one based on its own claims. But I did not intend to examine every claim of contradiction in the bible here discuss how you can find the truth amidst contradictory claims.
As a child and teenage Christian I always gave the most positive and generous interpretation of the Bible and focused on verses like "Judge not lest ye be judged" and "turn the other cheek". I never understood why certain people gravitated towards the most extreme or harmful claims in the bible over the many options for a gentler approach.
But usually the reason giving for focus on the damnation type bits is based on the claim of innerrancy.
is it:
My reading of the bible contains contradictions I can not reconcile and as such, i can not accept if is the inspired word of a perfect God -
or
When I read the bile I see contradictions, I also believe it is the inspired word of God, can you all help me to reconcile the contradictions ?
or
none of the above
It seems to be literalism that makes people reject Christianity/Judaism/Islam etc.
I was taught Literalism and that is probably led me to reject the whole thing.
But Literalists actually have said either you believe it all or you reject it all. I was put in the position either to accept or reject it all.
It does seem that a lot of people want certainty including in science , academics and politics et al or they speak in certainties.
I am an agnostic about everything happy to be proved wrong. But can you really function with this level of skepticism? Where are the other agnostics and true skeptics that don't succumb to some kind of fundamentalism or dogma or certainty?
My objective is how to find truth in the midst of conflicting or contradictory claims.
I think we all face the dilemma of finding truth when there are so many claims on the table that are not all compatible.
It's not about a literal translation. Coz then God would be no better than a human when He succumbs to jealousy. The whole statement from which that part is captioned is about God being distinguished from all others. I have read translations which say that the word 'jealous' isn't exactly right since the true meaning should imply that God sets Himself apart from others (in terms of being unlimited).
The part about generations refers to cultural heritage and how it is passed down from parent to progeny. Otherwise, why would God assume that the third and fourth generation would hate him. Or why won't God punish the fifth and sixth generations? It just refers to how negativity are passed down to the succeeding generations who end up suffering because of the mistakes or lack of due diligence of their predecessors in making things right. It also goes on to say that God would show love to a thousand generations of those who love him. I think that's pretty clearly symbolic language. It just means that for those who live right the world is your oyster. The word 'thousand' just implies an unspecific and long amount of time kinda like how we now use 'gazillion'.
The difference between Moses and Ezekiel (and other prophets and leaders in the Bible) is the means they had to achieve their goals which also reflected greatly in the directives they gave to the masses. Moses was trying to instill the 'fear' of the Lord or Law in them (because they were developing their own nation or government) and that was the language he used to express how important obedience was. At the time of Ezekiel, there was a lot of misunderstandings concerning the Mosaic law and there was also influence from the babylonians which means there was outside influence questioning the logic of the israelites culture and religions. So, there was a need to show the israelites what God's justice looked like on a personal basis instead of the outrageous (in the sense that it was meant to coerce through force of emotion instead of understanding) interpretation they had derived from the mosaic laws. And this is something that was often repeated by other prophets including Jesus.
Ok, so apply it to any and all beliefs. I can agree to that.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
I'm not defending anybody's atrocities, I'm defending reason. If we are going to critically assess atrocities by those of all points of view, that would be reason, so I'm interested.
Or, if you wish to host an ideology thread, perhaps it could be given a name such as "Why I Hate Religion" or something like that.
That is a straw man and probably ad hominem.
The contradictions are central to the the coherence of the bible and understanding its doctrines.
The Bible is collection of books written at different times so the idea there is an overarching message is implausible. Personally I find what is actually written in the bible is important and not some overarching subjective interpretation.
I don't think you can drown out offensive parts of the bible with the notion of some overarching theme. I have just been focusing on contradictions here but there are lots of other critics of the bible and arguments I accept that it is a very immoral text.
Here is the Skeptics annotated bible list of 492 contradictions in the bible and it does not cover all of them there.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
The contradictions about series event and numbers are problematic because there is no way to know which claim is to believe such as at what age a king came to the throne. But doctrinal and and moral contradictions are even more problematic because they undermine any over arching message you claim is there.
Issues such as are there unforgivable sins
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/unforgivable.html
and who should the gospel be preached to
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/samaritans.html
The thread was originally about the effect of contradiction on truths but the response has been people defending the bible.
So I have had to point out that harmful doctrines in the Bible ought to be challenged. That is the only reason i mentioned atrocities and then my own personal experience of religious harm.
If you want to challenge communism or atheism on the grounds of contradiction then please do so as soon as possible.
I used the bible as an example because of infallibility claims made on its behalf which are not usually made in other areas. I don't know of any contradictory doctrines or infallibility claims that communists promote so how could I base the discussion around that?
In the Bible and other Religions it actually claims you will go to hell if you don't do X, Y and z which makes it obviously very important to be able to ascertain the truth.
I have found the responses on this thread very disheartening and depressing.
Why?
Here's the very start of the thread, your words.
You started right in from the very beginning attacking the Bible specifically, and are now surprised that members are talking about the Bible.
I suggest a start over in another thread. If you wish to talk about contradictions, talk about contradictions.
As Abraham Lincoln famously said, "Do not believe everything that you read on the Internet."
More seriously, as noted, "contradiction" has a very specific definition in logic and philosophy; it requires the assertion of both A and not-A at the same time and in the same sense. I suspect that you would find, upon careful examination, that most of the alleged contradictions in the Bible would not actually qualify as such in this rigorous sense. In fact, theologians over the centuries have recognized them, wrestled with them, and offered plausible resolutions. For example ...
Quoting Andrew4Handel
Regarding the first issue, the consensus among Christians is that the only unforgivable sin, which Jesus called "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost," is rejecting the forgiveness that God otherwise offers. Regarding the second issue, the restrictions that Jesus imposed on His disciples (Matthew 10) and that the Holy Ghost imposed on Paul (Acts 16) were clearly intended only for those specific occasions, not applicable for all time.
I am not really interested in trying to deal with every alleged contradiction in the Bible, especially since your mind already seems to be made up. Hopefully this just gives you an idea of how an intentionally charitable reading--one that treats consistency as the default interpretation, rather than contradiction--can be helpful for understanding why many very intelligent people can and do hold it in such high regard.
How is the factual and irrefutable claim that the bible contains contradictions attacking the bible?
It is simply a fact.
The Bible is not a person that can be attacked. I was critiquing the Bible as a source of truth.
I have explained why I started with the bible numerous times now.
It is not alleged contradictions.
Since you take this stance then there is no point talking to you.
If you cannot work that out why should I waste any more words?
I explained why two of the alleged contradictions are not actual contradictions. As you said yourself ...
Quoting Andrew4Handel
I am obviously not going to take the time to deal with all 490 other alleged contradictions. My point was mainly to illustrate my approach to what you supposedly wanted to discuss in this thread.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
When you encounter an apparent contradiction, I advocate being a charitable reader, which means treating consistency as the default interpretation and attributing actual contradictions to any piece of writing only as a last resort.
In any case, as I said before, your mind already seems to be made up--i.e., your current beliefs about the Bible appear to be just as dogmatic as those of any fundamentalist.
Im just wondering why you are depressed and disheartened, and thought I would ask you rather than guess. Why the attitude? What words have you wasted on me?
I am referring to what the bible actually says and not Christians believe.
I gave detailed scriptural reference earlier to the blatant contradiction of whether people should be punished for the sins of their fathers.
I think it is totally immoral and indefensible to punish people for the sins of others yet that happens frequently in the bible.
But most contradictions are just numerical and factually incoherent such as what time king began to reign or how many troops fought at a battle and sequences of events.
For example:
"Now Absalom ... said, I have not sons to keep my name in remembrance" 2 Samuel 18:18
vs
And unto Absalom there were born three sons. 2 Samuel 14:27
As I pointed out people claim that if you are not a Christian you will go to hell.
But people are suggesting contradictions in the bible don't matter or giving vague answers.
If I was speaking to a bomb disposal expert I would want to know which of the wires to cut, red or green it would not be a trivial issue.
I have discussed at length elsewhere my belief people should not create more children (antinatalism) and got less vociferous responses.
The bible impacts billions of peoples lives and philosophies and is forcefully promoted so it is not a case of benign personal belief where inconsistencies don't matter and no one is harmed.
Im not sure who you think you are talking to here. Was that supposed to address something I said? Im the one that agreed with you.
The bible has a great many contradictions, and you should reject it on that basis. The reason you are getting resistance to your idea is because it threatens peoples own ideas about the bible, i think the term is “apologetics”.
What perplexes me is why you would be disheartened by a conversation you invited by starting a thread about it. You didnt think anyone would disagree? You didnt think you would trigger people irrational defenses? This is religion we are talking about.
On the contrary, you are repeatedly asserting your own dogmatic beliefs about the Bible. Why start the thread at all, if your mind was already made up?
Again, when we encounter an apparent contradiction in any piece of writing, I advocate being a charitable reader, treating consistency as the default interpretation and attributing actual contradictions only as a last resort.
Why would your default position be to assume, even if you have to really struggle to justify the assumption, that the text is consistent?
So if I write “i like blue skies rather than grey skies, but I like grey skies much more than blue skies”, you would default to the assumption that I easnt being contradicting? Thats just not sensible at all.
I am not stating my own beliefs I have quoted the scripture.
How do you apply the principle of charity to this verse?
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)
Those who seek faults find faults. There is also great wisdom to be found in the bible. I wonder, do the contradictions highlighted devalue or invalidate the wisdom? Or, do they reveal the extent to which the fallible human 'hand' is involved in the authorship of the bible?
Perhaps you have multiple personalities with different subjective preferences. More seriously, that is an obvious contradiction within the same sentence; I was talking about apparent contradictions across a much larger text, especially one that has been carefully scrutinized by scholars for centuries.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
You are repeatedly stating your dogmatic belief that the Bible is contradictory. Even if I were to offer plausible resolutions for all 492 alleged contradictions on that website in which you evidently have placed your faith, it seems unlikely that you would change your mind.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
What is the alleged contradiction?
Quoting Andrew4Handel
Only if one is easily persuaded by shallow caricatures.
It is not a case of contradiction but there is no charitable interpretation to give it.
You have yet to refute one contradiction. And it seems also you refuse to engage.
If someone says 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 would you call that an alleged contradiction?
The reason I believed it is because it quoted and compared the words written in the bible.
Why wouldnt you assume that my sentence would not be contradictory once you understood its broader context? You said that is the defualt position. You arent being consistent, you are making an exception for the bible. Special pleading I believe its called.
I have explained (several times now) what I mean by the principle of charity in this context--treating consistency as the default interpretation and attributing actual contradictions only as a last resort.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
I addressed two alleged contradictions in my very first post in this thread. If I came to believe that you were sincerely seeking the truth, and thus open to changing your mind, I would be glad to discuss others.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
Anyone can quote and compare words written in just about any literary work of significant length to create alleged contradictions. Studying the text as a whole and trying to reconcile them is hard work.
Quoting DingoJones
In this particular case, because you were clearly trying to generate an obvious counterexample in an effort to disparage my purported approach. If I came across that same sentence within a poem, I would be inclined to evaluate it differently. Would you like to suggest some other circumstances in which it would make sense?
This is what you said ^^^
In the link I posted it says "The great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity. Titus 2:13-14
You cited the consensus among Christians. there is no consensus. there is lots of schisms among Christianity on interpretations of the bible.
There is also this verse
Hebrews 10:26, "For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins."
Yet in Revelation 3:5 it says
"The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life"
2 Kings 8:26
Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri, king of Israel.
2 Chronicles 22:2
Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri.
As I said before ...
Quoting aletheist
You are missing the point. Do you think that if I MADE UP a bunch of other stuff to accompany that it would make a difference? I could fabricate more such nonsense to accompany the blue sky/grey sky nonsense and you and I will both know its made up nonsense and its still on the same footing as the bible. Made up.
Also, you are dodging here. You said charitable reading is your default...but its not, you just showed it isnt. Your default is skepticism of contradiction, you just dont apply it to the bible because doing so threatens your cherished belief.
I stated quite plainly that I was talking about apparent contradictions across a much larger text, especially one that has been carefully scrutinized by scholars for centuries. If you think that you can judge and dismiss me on the basis of one brief exchange on an Internet forum ... well, cheers.
And I pointed out why your “apparent contradictions accross a much larger text” is an absurd argument, which you ignored. Just like you ignored your own special pleading and how your own standards arent being applied to your special book.
Sorry I was feeling upset yesterday. But I did not like comments like this, from other people
"Yes, literally contradictory. Oh dear, God screwed up. Woe is you!"
and
"So, you haven't read it? And I am pretty sure you do not understand it - as a whole book. "
My initial point was to ask do contradictions discredit something. I feel that people (not you) ignored that topic to focus on defending the bible.
So I had to point out what is at stake like the threat of hell, condemnation for homosexuality (my own experience) but also historically there has been the crusades, wars, the inquisition, Witch hunts, burning people to stake for heresy and so on. That is why I felt disheartened when biblical doctrine and disagreements has been the source of a lot of evils.
Ok, I understand. Like I said, of course you should be skeptical of something as contradictory as the bible.
Quite right. Theology is intellectual tennis without a net. When it comes to "my religion vs. yours," contradictions for thee, but not for me. Torture a text long enough, and it will confess to anything; that doesn't mean that the Bible isn't internally inconsistent in a number of ways.
Something could be completely consistent but untrue. If the bible never contradicted itself that would not entail that it was true.
I think the problem is how can something that contradicts itself be true. To me it is kind of crazy to try and juggle and justify contradiction.
Quoting DingoJones
And everyone should in my opinion.
I don't see why requesting reason and logic could be a bad thing. There may be other ways of exploring reality but reason and logic are very productive.
It seems to me people want to fall back on interpretation and allegory sometimes simply to avoid scrutiny.
It would help alot if religious people could see the distinction between the belief in god and the belief in religion. They wouldnt cling so steadfast to an obviously man made, fallible and grossly outdated book if it didnt so directly threaten their belief in god.