Yet ironically, and most unfortunately, Contradictions in the Bible is a topic generally and almost exclusively treated in the public arena by two opposing camps, both of whom are non-experts in the field: Atheists and Christian apologists. While atheists are generally correct in claiming that the Bible does in fact contain numerous contradictions.... they often present these contradictions in a shallow and belittling manner—an empty list devoid of substance with little to no real knowledge of the texts themselves, their authors, audiences, and the historical and literary circumstances that produced them.[2]DiMattei is "a visiting assistant professor at the University of Houston and has taught at Coronell." [3] He never says what his beliefs are concerning God or the Bible. In thinking of the Bible he only tells us his scholarly views not his beliefs. He places an emphasis upon the Bible as a collection of independent works. It was not drafted to fit together.[4] It is more like a library made up of the favorite books of a set of chruches."
The kinds of contradictions he discusses are all one's that have been thrown at me on many message boards. He says these are "identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them" [5]
He chides the skeptics for shallow list making with nn real attempt to understand contex:
While atheists are generally correct in claiming that the Bible does in fact contain numerous contradictions, from minute differences in narrative details to competing theological and ideological agendas, they often present these contradictions in a shallow and belittling manner--an empty list devoid of substance with little to no real knowledge of the texts themselves, their authors, audiences, and the historical and literary circumstances that produced them. The internet is full of such lists. Although often impressionable, these lists do little to foster a conversation about the Bible’s texts, nor do they help remedy the increasingly systemic problem of biblical illiteracy currently sweeping across our country.[6]I will only deal with a few contradictions. He may have some good one's but many of those he deals with are piddling or no contradiction at all. A ew examples:
#1. Was earth created from preexistent matter OR nothing? (Gen 1:1-10; Is 45:18 vs Heb 11:3)?
"Hebrews 11:3 is often invoked as a proof text for the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. While some may wish to debate this reading, since the verse can be read as an abstract statement about faith, literally, 'not from that which is visible did the things that are seen come into being,” I shall nevertheless treat it as if it did proclaim this doctrine....'"[7]
This merely says the seen things of creation are created from the unseen. That might mean atoms, It might mean nothing. Creation ex nihilo is a church idea it's not explicit in the Bible.
Isaiah 45:18 For this is what the Lord says—
he who created the heaens,
he is God;
he who fashioned and made the earth,
he founded it;
he did not create it to be empty,
but formed it to be inhabited—
he says:
“I am the Lord,
and there is no other.
That does not say what material the earth was made out of it says it wasn't made to be empty, not the same thing, not a contradiction.
#2. Does God create the skies and the earth, then plants, then animals, and then both male and female in his image OR does Yahweh first form man from the ground, then plants, then animals, and then lastly woman from man’s rib? (Gen 1:1-27 [P] vs Gen 2:4b-23 [J]) #3. Does God create the earth, the skies, and man on the same day OR not? (Gen 2:4b-7 [J] vs Gen 1:1-27 [P])
#4. Is earth initially created as fecund and fertile OR dry and barren? (Gen 1:9-10 [P] vs Gen 2:5 [J])
This could be a contradiction although not an important one. The thing is it comes from two different accounts. It's like taking two opinions; it's a challenge to theology, nothing that will undermine the Gospel..
#5. "Are both man and women created in the image of God OR is man formed from the ground, and women formed from man? (Gen 1:26-27 [P] vs Gen 2:7, 2:21-23 [J]; 1 Cor 11:9; 1 Tim 2:13)"
There are no contradictions here. If man is formed from dust that not what he becomes. God says let us change the dust and put it in our image, no contradiction. Why should we assume that a woman being made from man's I(inner chambers (what it really says) would imply that shoot in the image of God. She is fashioned out of a being made in the image of God. Passages in the New Testament imply both are in God's image. Gal 4 Neither male nor female.
#6. When is all the vegetation created: before the creation of the animals, and man and woman OR after the creation of man and before the creation of the animals and woman? (Gen 1:11-13, 1:29-30 [P] vs Gen 2:9-10 [J])
Here he's reflecting the JEDP or source hypothesis. The idea that four documents are married together or form the modern OT. One uses thye fivine name the J document, J means Y, E is the Eloheim document means that author referred to God by the generic name El like just saying "GOD."[8] I won't go any deeper into that theory, I've seen fundies who just take this as an open attempt to destory the bbile. That is peranoid, it's not a bad theory, Im not against it. I prefer to use Setz im Leben (literally "setting n life") to determine dating.
#7. Does God declare all vegetation and trees as food for the primordial pair OR does Yahweh command that one of the trees not be eaten from? (Gen 1:29-30 [P] vs Gen 2:17 [J])Of course the Southern Baptists are good at harmonizing; they see the second account as a more detailed recap of the first. I don't think we need to harmonize contradictions. There can be contradictions, none of them undermine the gospel. The redactors of Genesis were not there at creation. They knew of two accounts they obviously had confidence in both. Who cares if animals came first or plants? both agree God created all.
The following entry is excerpted from Chapter 1, “Genesis’ Two Creation Accounts,” of my Genesis 1 and the Creationism Debate: Being Honest to the Text, Its Author, and His Beliefs, pp. 1-63. Ancient and modern readers alike have long recognized the differences between the seven-day creation account of Genesis 1:1-2:3 and the garden of Eden account of Genesis 2:4b-3:24.
#2. Did God create the heavens and earth from the formless deep OR did Yahweh create them from the slaying of the primaeval sea monster Leviathan/Rahab? (Gen 1:1-8 vs Ps 74:13-17, 89:11-13;Many conflicting creation accounts still reflect agreement upon three things:
Job 26:12-13)
The two creation accounts that open the book of Genesis, the Priestly and Yahwist, are not the only creation stories found in the Bible. A much older mythic tale is preserved in passages from the Psalms, the book of Job, and the Prophets. In fact, there are remarkably few references in the Bible to the Priestly creation account (which perhaps attests to its late date of composition), while conversely, there areRead More
(1) God is the ultimate source of all beings.
(2) We can know God will redeem us; God created humanity to be in relationship with him.
(3) God' creation is orderly and purposive; it does not compete with chaos or with a conflicting pantheon.
Jump up to NT
He is making an argument that modern Christians have no idea of the extreme level of commitment Jesus demanded.
Luke is more emphatic in representing this as a complete abandonment through his additions of the word panta (“all,” “everything”) to the textual tradition....They immediately abandoned their nets and followed him (Mk 1:18; Matt 4:20)...He rose up and followed him (Mk 2:14; Matt 9:9)...They abandoned everything and followed him (Lk 5:11).He forsook everything, rose up, and followed him (Lk 5:28).On a larger note, Luke’s emphasis on abandoning everything to follow Jesus goes hand-and-hand with his Jesus’ emphasis on the fact that those on the bottom rung of the socioeconomic ladder—the poor, the hungry, the despised, the socially exploited and outcast, i.e., “the last”—will inherit the kingdom. Indeed, these individuals become “the first '' in the redefined value system that Jesus is advocating, contrary to that of the current socioeconomic worldview. (Discussed in more detail below.)
In any case, these “Follow me!” passages express an immediate urgency. Indeed, several of these “Follow me!” imperatives anticipate objections, that is requests to delay following Jesus in order to fulfill prior or immediate social and/or familial obligations, by relaying the point that this too is not permissible (Matt 8:22; Lk 9:59-62). The message is clear: Following Jesus means to immediately “forsake all” and “leave everything behind.[9]”Of course it's true we moderns don't comprehend the level of commitment they had, Jesus never says you can't be saved if you don't give all your possessions away. He told rich people to do that, He did not tell the poor to do it.I tell people "give your life to Christ." What I mean by that is all purpose and goals make knowing Jesus the top priority and make spreading the Gospel the second top priority. You don't have to give away your house but must be willing to if necessary.
It is not a contradiction that Luke raised the level because Mark and Mattew never said where the bar was set. Matthew gives the great commission "go ye therefore into all the world and preach the Gospel." Matthew 28:19. But the Greek is not in the imperative case so its not a command. It more closely says "where ever you go tell them all."
Is Steven DiMattei an atheist? I don't want to label him because he doesn't tell us I think that would not be fair. Biblical contradictions can lead to complex issues. They do not automatically disprove the Bible. He seems to display greater sympathy for them:
"I too very much appreciate my de-convert readership, many of whom still believe in God in some form or another, but who have also grown aware that the Bible’s texts are not what they were conditioned to think they were. In this respect many of these readers find comfort in unbiased historically sensitive biblical research such as this site attempts to offer."[10]
He does tell the atheists whatI've been trying to get across to them since 1999 learning the context of Bible contradictions. But we see he clearly gives aid to the God hater club.
Matthew Green says:August 26, 2020 at 5:05 pm S&F," "no! Just a flat-out “no!” Iwll never believe or receive Jesus Christ or anything of the sort. I am forever done with conservative Christianity. If I go to Hell, then fine. I seriously couldn’t care less. In fact, I prefer it rather than spend eternity with ]Jesus'."[11]
With anattiude like that does goving aid matter? Here's what a believer says
Saved And Forgiven says:
August 19, 2020 at 4:10 pm
To those people who read the contradictions you said in your writings and will never come to believe in Jesus Christ as their Lord, God and Savior or the power of the Bible as the Word of God because of your writing, then i think you will be accountable as a contributor or an inspiration to their decisions in denying God and His Word. Hope you use your site to bring people to the love of God through Jesus Christ. There is still a chance to change before you meet Jesus Christ and give accountability for every work being done. Believe and receive Jesus Christ. Repent and be saved before its too late. May the Lord have mercy on you and the people you mislead..[12]"contradictions in the bible" by Dr.Steven DiMattei is a fine site. It seriously discusses many scholarly matters in a thoughtful and highly educated way.It probably does lend comfort to atheists weather intended or not this same act also enligthens believers about allowoing for some contradictions. It is not the fact of contradictions that is harmful. It is what is being contradicted that harms the Godpel or not.I think the more aware we are the stonger our faith will be if we really seek God.
Notes
[1] Steven DiMattei,"about me and the Website," Contradictions in the Bible (2017) https://contradictionsinthebible.com/steven-dimattei/
[2] Ibid.
[3]Steven DiMattei,"about me," Everything Biblical:What is the Bible? Who wrote the Bible and When? How and Why did the Bible come to be?(most recent entry Oct. 2018) http://stevendimattei.com/author/ Amazon says he taught at Cornell https://www.amazon.com/Steven-DiMattei/e/B01E6PJ7PI%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share
I know he's an academic he reminds me so much of the profs I had at Perkins
[4]____________, "What was the Bible before the Bible was?" Contraictions....op cit https://contradictionsinthebible.com/what-is-the-bible/
[5]Ibid.
[6]Ibid.
[7]_________________, "Genesis," Ibid https://contradictionsinthebible.com/category/genesis/
[8]"JEDP Theory." Theopedia, (no date given) https://www.theopedia.com/jedp-theory
[9]DiMattei, "In Defense of Jesus:A Challenge To Those Claiming To 'Follow Jesus' (part I)" Contradictions... Ibid
https://contradictionsinthebible.com/following-jesus-a-defense/
[10]DiMattei's about me Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
23 comments:
There's far too much to respond to here in one comment so I'll restrict myself to the discussion around the first few DiMattei quotes.
DiMattei (as you present him) is not saying anything surprising to someone who has been in a seminary recently. One of the problems most people encounter when they are confronted with a critical analysis of the text in light of current scholarship is that the text does not have one voice or one viewpoint. In fact, if anything, DiMattei's critique appears to be out of date. He speaks of "authors" as if there was one master architect of each chunk of text. Someone wrote the book we call John and recycled the opening poem/hymn. But, it's very clear that the first draft (of many chunks) was not the final hand in the process. How do you properly talk about contradictions without first speaking to the extended editorial and canonization process (one one hand) and (on the other) the way those contradictions are actually intentionally used within the text to either question those in power or illuminate something unexpressable.
Some see the Bible as a monolithic work. The cliche atheist position is that it exists to generate fear as a basis of power. There's a cliche fundamentalist position that imagines the text as a universal moralistic framework with mechansisms to address human failures to live up to THE CODE. Both views radically fail for surprisingly similar reasons. So... we're back to the value of contradictions: they illuminate the range of voices, contexts, etc, that we find in this collection of texts. There is a challenge that most such scholarship ignores when it is presented to the general public. Our social media and news culture assumes that contradictions are a problem. See the recent Biden gaffe walk back. It's nothing (argues one side). It's evidence of his senility or a secret US plan (argues two and a half other sides).
In our culture, contradictions are viewed as either an attack or as something to be disproven. And, perhaps, they are an asset to be valued. Maybe a gaffe reflects policy nor senility but an understanding that the only easy ways out are not viable while acknowledging our own horror at what we are watching
In presenting the scholarship (particularly when leaving out key unifiers like canonization and the editorial process) the "scholar" really does create a moral obligation to foster conversation about the range of ways to interpret contradictions. I'm not so certain that even in an academic environment one escapes this obligation. Words have power and a disinterested presentation of the facts is not neutral when it collides with culture and assumptions. So what questions should scholarship be raising about interpreting its results? Are contradictions proofs that the text is wrong? When, like typos and the failings of memory, do they point to limitations of authorship and editing? Can they point to unifying views? Do they allow the text to be applied in different ways in different times? Are the moralistic bits people pull out of context illustrations of a deeper principle?
thanks for the comment. you could turn that into a article. It almost is one now. I'm not complaining.
More after lunch.
Are contradictions proofs that the text is wrong? When, like typos and the failings of memory, do they point to limitations of authorship and editing?
Depends upon what is being contradicted. Obviously it disproves inerrecy, by definition,
Can they point to unifying views? Do they allow the text to be applied in different ways in different times?
we would have to have particulars to answer that.
Are the moralistic bits people pull out of context illustrations of a deeper principle?
Yes the principle of not doing that
Why become a Christian when the Bible says that you are going to be spending eternity working? What kind of a higher purpose is that? You just receive a stronger body that doesn't wear out just to do toil in the soil each and every day.
I like the approach that Peter Enns takes. He agrees that the Bible has many voices and sometimes contradictions. The problem is not with the Bible, but with the expectations and ultimatums we place on it. "If the Bible is inspired by God, it should look like we expect such a thing to look." That's where we err.
great point Kristen.
Anonymous said...
Why become a Christian when the Bible says that you are going to be spending eternity working? What kind of a higher purpose is that? You just receive a stronger body that doesn't wear out just to do toil in the soil each and every day.
What are you talking about?
The thing about contradictions is that the Bible is supposedly a book telling us The Truth, and is inspired by God. Every error, every typo, every contradiction is a sign that that is not true.
God supposedly raise Jesus from the dead, but he cannot even proof-read a book?
DiMattei says:
While atheists are generally correct in claiming that the Bible does in fact contain numerous contradictions, from minute differences in narrative details to competing theological and ideological agendas, they often present these contradictions in a shallow and belittling manner—an empty list devoid of substance with little to no real knowledge of the texts themselves, their authors, audiences, and the historical and literary circumstances that produced them. The internet is full of such lists. Although often impressionable, these lists do little to foster a conversation about the Bible’s texts, nor do they help remedy the increasingly systemic problem of biblical illiteracy currently sweeping across our country.
Atheists do not present the lists to solve the problem of biblical illiteracy, they present them to show that the Bible is the work of man, and man alone.
I think some of those listed contradictions are pretty weak, but others show that actually the Bible authors were not reliably reporting what happened.
For instance, did the women who found the empty tomb tell no one, as Mark would have us think, or did they immediately tell the disciples, as Matthew claims? There are convoluted rationalisations for that, but to my mind the most likely is that the author of Matthew decided Mark's version did not fit the story, and so he arbitrarily changed it.
Pix
Anonymous said...
The thing about contradictions is that the Bible is supposedly a book telling us The Truth, and is inspired by God. Every error, every typo, every contradiction is a sign that that is not true.
You speak of inerrancy. That is a fundamentalist idea. It's not in the Bible it's not required of any church as official dormie. Nor is it the only idea about Biblical inspiration.
God supposedly raise Jesus from the dead, but he cannot even proof-read a book?
Only fundamentalists expect that
DiMattei says:
"While atheists are generally correct in claiming that the Bible does in fact contain numerous contradictions, from minute differences in narrative details to competing theological and ideological agendas, they often present these contradictions in a shallow and belittling manner—an empty list devoid of substance with little to no real knowledge of the texts themselves, their authors, audiences, and the historical and literary circumstances that produced them. The internet is full of such lists. Although often impressionable, these lists do little to foster a conversation about the Bible’s texts, nor do they help remedy the increasingly systemic problem of biblical illiteracy currently sweeping across our country."
Atheists do not present the lists to solve the problem of biblical illiteracy, they present them to show that the Bible is the work of man, and man alone.
I said that guy's book could help I don't what atheists want.
I think some of those listed contradictions are pretty weak, but others show that actually the Bible authors were not reliably reporting what happened.
For instance, did the women who found the empty tomb tell no one, as Mark would have us think, or did they immediately tell the disciples, as Matthew claims? There are convoluted rationalizations for that, but to my mind the most likely is that the author of Matthew decided Mark's version did not fit the story, and so he arbitrarily changed it.
Mary Magdelon and Peter went independently and found the empty tomb. so they told everyone then it was learned behind the scenes the women had been there,
you must not have read my article because I said there are contradictions.so what?
You speak of inerrancy. That is a fundamentalist idea. It's not in the Bible it's not required of any church as official dormie. Nor is it the only idea about Biblical inspiration.
Why is it wrong? As far as I can tell the argument against it is that the Bible gets stuff wrong, and you want to rationalise that.
Churches do not adopt it as doctrine because they know the Bible is full of errors, not because it makes theological sense.
Why would we expect the sacred text to have errors in it? We would not - not if God actually exists.
Mary Magdelon and Peter went independently and found the empty tomb. so they told everyone then it was learned behind the scenes the women had been there,
This is a great example of how Christians will rationise away anything. Compared the texts...
Mark 16:6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”
8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.
Matthew 28:5 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6 He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.”
8 So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples.
Mark 16:6-7 and Matthew 28:5-7 are clearly talking about the same event - the man or angel (an understandable disagreement; they simply did not know) is talking to the women, saying almot the same words. But in the next verse they make contradictory claims.
Further, there is no mention of Peter! Or of Mary Magdalene finding the tomb independantly of Mary the mother of James. You are just making this up! Both texts says both Marys were there, and no Peter.
And the point about contradictions like that is they make me wonder what else is made up. The empty tomb? The resurrection?
Pix
Anonymous said...
ME:You speak of inerrancy. That is a fundamentalist idea. It's not in the Bible it's not required of any church as official dormie. Nor is it the only idea about Biblical inspiration.
Why is it wrong? As far as I can tell the argument against it is that the Bible gets stuff wrong, and you want to rationalise that.
You are using the contradiction as an all purpose disqualifier. Contradictions in themselves can be benign or unimportant they are autoptic disqualifiers.
Churches do not adopt it as doctrine because they know the Bible is full of errors, not because it makes theological sense.
That assumes they are stuck with a text then have to decide what to make of it. The model was the the OT when the church came to be. So they were already handed half a Bible. But they weren't predisposed to the NT canon. That was formed based upon the test of time: the popularity of the latter's over time. They were not sadaled with a contradictory NT they could have changed those. So I think they considered that and decided the Texts that made NT were not contradictory in an important sense.
Why would we expect the sacred text to have errors in it? We would not - not if God actually exists.
That depends upon your model for sacred text. You are to hearing fundies make a big deal oit of contradictions.
Mary Magdelon and Peter went independently and found the empty tomb. so they told everyone then it was learned behind the scenes the women had been there,
This is a great example of how Christians will rationise away anything. Compared the texts...
Give me an example of a contradiction that really undermines the faith.
Mark 16:6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”
8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.
Matthew 28:5 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6 He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.”
8 So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples.
I think any reasonable person can see trying to true who heard what from whom is a pretty difficult job and bound to run into snags. We don't to know if the women told anyone we know someone did since it got out. The woman had to tell someone eventually or we would not have the account of them. The eye witness says one thing the guy who was not there says another. That is not a serious contradiction because it doesn't matter f the women told anyone or not.
Mark 16:6-7 and Matthew 28:5-7 are clearly talking about the same event - the man or angel (an understandable disagreement; they simply did not know) is talking to the women, saying almost the same words. But in the next verse they make contradictory claims.
Is that the one I just cleared up? Matthew was there Mark was not.
Further, there is no mention of Peter! Or of Mary Magdalene finding the tomb independantly of Mary the mother of James. You are just making this up! Both texts says both Marys were there, and no Peter.
My argument for that is based upon the account in John.
And the point about contradictions like that is they make me wonder what else is made up. The empty tomb? The resurrection?
the assertion that contradiction = made up is a piss poor idea. No reason to think it's made up. It just means one guy got it wrong, not both. Take the eye witness,
You are using the contradiction as an all purpose disqualifier. Contradictions in themselves can be benign or unimportant they are autoptic disqualifiers.
All you can do is assert contradictions do not matter. How about you address the issue, and explain why?
Why are there errors in a text that supposedly comes from an all-knowing and all-powerful god? Does he want there to be errors?
That assumes they are stuck with a text then have to decide what to make of it.
It is that or assume they re-wrote the text. Most scholars date the OT to before Christianity, so...
The model was the the OT when the church came to be. So they were already handed half a Bible. But they weren't predisposed to the NT canon. That was formed based upon the test of time: the popularity of the latter's over time. They were not sadaled with a contradictory NT they could have changed those. So I think they considered that and decided the Texts that made NT were not contradictory in an important sense.
The church was saddled with the texts that were popular, not the ones that made a coherent narrative. The author of later gospels were saddled with what was already in earlier gospels, and had to, as far as possible, keep the existing text the same.
That depends upon your model for sacred text. You are to hearing fundies make a big deal oit of contradictions.
So state your model.
Give me an example of a contradiction that really undermines the faith.
If you mean something fundamental to Christian beliefs, the church has already redacted them. All those other gospels that did not fit, for example, failed to make the canon.
I think any reasonable person can see trying to true who heard what from whom is a pretty difficult job and bound to run into snags. We don't to know if the women told anyone we know someone did since it got out. The woman had to tell someone eventually or we would not have the account of them. The eye witness says one thing the guy who was not there says another. That is not a serious contradiction because it doesn't matter f the women told anyone or not.
1. The author of Matthew copied Mark; he was not an eye witness.
2. We have a made up story in Mark where the women told no one, that got copied into Matthew, but altered to say they did tell someone.
3. The women did not have to "tell someone eventually"; the whole thing was made up. Mark said they told no one to explan why people in Jerusalem at that time did not heard about the empty tomb. When Matthew was written, it was not an issue as people there at the time were dead.
4. Previously you said "Mary Magdelon and Peter went independently and found the empty tomb". Have you abasndoned that nonsense?
My argument for that is based upon the account in John.
So we have a third contradictory account.
the assertion that contradiction = made up is a piss poor idea. No reason to think it's made up. It just means one guy got it wrong, not both. Take the eye witness,
There was no eye witness. The author of Matthew was not St Matthew, and the women never saw an empty tomb.
The point here is, why God would allow an inaccurate record of the events?
And given he did allow that, how can we trust any of it?
Pix
ME:You are using the contradiction as an all purpose disqualifier. Contradictions in themselves can be benign or unimportant they are autoptic disqualifiers.[should say not disqualifiers]
You:All you can do is assert contradictions do not matter. How about you address the issue, and explain why?
No I did not say that. I never said contradictions don't matter. I said certain kinds of contradictions don't matter. If you wish to impugn the Bible you must show the kind of contradiction that matters.
Why are there errors in a text that supposedly comes from an all-knowing and all-powerful god? Does he want there to be errors?
why do you assume the fundie version of inspiration? Because it's the hardest to defend?
part 2
That assumes they are stuck with a text then have to decide what to make of it.
It is that or assume they re-wrote the text. Most scholars date the OT to before Christianity, so...
so? what's your point?
ME?:The model was the the OT when the church came to be. So they were already handed half a Bible. But they weren't predisposed to the NT canon. That was formed based upon the test of time: the popularity of the latter's over time. They were not sadaled with a contradictory NT they could have changed those. So I think they considered that and decided the Texts that made NT were not contradictory in an important sense.
YouThe church was saddled with the texts that were popular, not the ones that made a coherent narrative. The author of later gospels were saddled with what was already in earlier gospels, and had to, as far as possible, keep the existing text the same.
ME:That depends upon your model for sacred text. You are to hearing fundies make a big deal oit of contradictions.
YOU:So state your model.
dialectical retrieval. See Avery Dulles Models of revelation
ME:Give me an example of a contradiction that really undermines the faith.
YOU:If you mean something fundamental to Christian beliefs, the church has already redacted them. All those other gospels that did not fit, for example, failed to make the canon.
That is a jaundiced understanding of how the canon came to be.
part 3
ME:I think any reasonable person can see trying to [trace] who heard what from whom is a pretty difficult job and bound to run into snags. We don't to know if the women told anyone we know someone did since it got out. The woman had to tell someone eventually or we would not have the account of them. The eye witness says one thing the guy who was not there says another. That is not a serious contradiction because it doesn't matter f the women told anyone or not.
1. The author of Matthew copied Mark; he was not an eye witness.
There is a pre Mark redaction and it shows up in Matt. So we know parts of Matt existed before Mark.
2. We have a made up story in Mark where the women told no one, that got copied into Matthew, but altered to say they did tell someone.
That makes no sense. You are saying A copied B and changed it so it's not the same. how do we know it's copied? It's not the same, maybe it comes from a different source.
3. The women did not have to "tell someone eventually"; the whole thing was made up.
that makes even less sense, you really are assuming they were idiots. Hey let's make up this incident that is totally irrelevant just put it there for no reason. O wow lets do it
Mark said they told no one to explant why people in Jerusalem at that time did not heard about the empty tomb. When Matthew was written, it was not an issue as people there at the time were dead.
they clearly heard about it. It's part of every early version, Most mythological stories have multiple versions and develop over a long time. This one is there in t6he earliest versions and always the same.
4. Previously you said "Mary Magdelon and Peter went independently and found the empty tomb". Have you abasndoned that nonsense?
My argument for that is based upon the account in John.
So we have a third contradictory account.
I see you don't know what contradictions are. Additional material is not a contradiction unless it changes something already established, or comes at variance with other material
the assertion that contradiction = made up is a piss poor idea. No reason to think it's made up. It just means one guy got it wrong, not both. Take the eye witness,
There was no eye witness. The author of Matthew was not St Matthew, and the women never saw an empty tomb.
false. church father say it was Mathew the Apostle who wrote Matt the Gospel. While it is true that document was heavily redacted it still has the same story as Mark and John. John is seen as independent testimony,
The point here is, why God would allow an inaccurate record of the events?
Because inspiration is not dictation. Besides in calling it increate you are setting up a standard that favors skepticism. What's inaccurate about it?
And given he did allow that, how can we trust any of it?
that is the slippery slope fallacy
Joe
No I did not say that. I never said contradictions don't matter. I said certain kinds of contradictions don't matter. If you wish to impugn the Bible you must show the kind of contradiction that matters.
But presumably you think all the contradictions in the Bible fall into the kind of contradiction that does not matter. Hence, when I say all contradictions that is the same list as when you say contradictions that do not matter.
Or do you think there are contrsdictions that do matter?
Furthermore, I am still not seeing you explain why these contradictions do not matter. Why are there errors in the Bible if God exists, and wants to promote the right message? Is he impotent to stop mankind getting it wrong? Does he not care?
why do you assume the fundie version of inspiration? Because it's the hardest to defend?
Because it is the one that makes sense. God is supposed to be all-powerful and all-knowing. Given that, we would expect him to ensure his sacred text is right. The prediction (in the scientific sense) is that the Bible should be perfect in every language.
so? what's your point?
The church had to work with what it had. It did not choose the OT, it had the OT thrust upon it.
I guess another example would be with Jesus' brother, James. In Paul's epistles, we can see that James was the most important of the disciples; the leader after Jesus died. As the gospels appear, James' role gets more and more reduced, until in John he does not get a mention! Jesus' brother and the firsty leader of the disciples, and he has been written out of the nasrrative.
dialectical retrieval. See Avery Dulles Models of revelation
I am not sure what you are saying here. How is a sacred text dialectical? How does Dulles model explain why there are errors in the text?
That is a jaundiced understanding of how the canon came to be.
That does not make it wrong. The whole point of the canon was to establish an orthodoxy. Look at the first canon, Marcion's. He selected the epistles he agreed with, and edited Luke to suit. I appreciate this was later considered heresy, but then so was Origen, and his canon was pretty close to what we have today! The process for orthodoxy was the same; accept the works that fit, reject those that do not.
Because inspiration is not dictation. Besides in calling it increate you are setting up a standard that favors skepticism. What's inaccurate about it?
Divine inspiration should get it right!
that is the slippery slope fallacy
Why? Talk me through it Joe.
Pix
Joe
There is a pre Mark redaction and it shows up in Matt. So we know parts of Matt existed before Mark.
I am not sure what you mean here. Are you claiming an earlier version of Matthew? Can you substantiate that?
Certainly Matthew draws on other sources, and those sources may pre-date Mark, but nevertheless Matthew is dated after Mark by about a decade.
That makes no sense. You are saying A copied B and changed it so it's not the same. how do we know it's copied? It's not the same, maybe it comes from a different source.
We know Matthew is copied from Mark because so much of Mark appears in Matthew. This is accepted by most Biblical scholars. Nevertheless, the author of Matthew changed some details, one of which is that he changed the women not telling anyone to the women immediately telling the disciples.
that makes even less sense, you really are assuming they were idiots. Hey let's make up this incident that is totally irrelevant just put it there for no reason. O wow lets do itthey clearly heard about it. It's part of every early version, Most mythological stories have multiple versions and develop over a long time. This one is there in t6he earliest versions and always the same.
No it is not. It is not in 1 Cor 15, the earliest version, dated ca. AD 50.
I see you don't know what contradictions are. Additional material is not a contradiction unless it changes something already established, or comes at variance with other material
Mark says the women saw the tomb was empty and never told anyone
Matthew says the women saw the tomb was empty and immediately told the disciples
John says it was Peter who saw the tomb was empty
I call them contradictions (though John is a bit vague about what the women saw).
false. church father say it was Mathew the Apostle who wrote Matt the Gospel. While it is true that document was heavily redacted it still has the same story as Mark and John. John is seen as independent testimony,
I assume this is about Papius. Papius said there was a gospel written by Matthew, but why should we suppose he was taking about the text we have? Papius was talking about a text written in Hebrew/Aramaic, but the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek. Two differenr texts, Joe.
Now, it is possible that the author of Matthew used the Hebrew text, but we have no idea what was in there. Most likely it was sections that are in Matthew, and not Mark, so not the passion.
Pix
But presumably you think all the contradictions in the Bible fall into the kind of contradiction that does not matter. Hence, when I say all contradictions that is the same list as when you say contradictions that do not matter.
If I found one that really killed my faith I would stop having faith, But I found answers.
Or do you think there are contradictions that do matter?
Theoretically they all matter but it's a matter of explaining or arguing them away,
Furthermore, I am still not seeing you explain why these contradictions do not matter. Why are there errors in the Bible if God exists, and wants to promote the right message? Is he impotent to stop mankind getting it wrong? Does he not care?
I have explained this many times. God is not a big man in the sky. Inspiration is not dictation.
why do you assume the fundie version of inspiration? Because it's the hardest to defend?
That is nuts. I argue against the fundie idea all the time, see my current blog post on fundie view quashes real scholarship,
Because it is the one that makes sense. God is supposed to be all-powerful and all-knowing. Given that, we would expect him to ensure his sacred text is right. The prediction (in the scientific sense) is that the Bible should be perfect in every language.
the fundie view doesn't make sense. They are literalistic that's always problematic.
Pix:so? what's your point?
Joe: The church had to work with what it had. It did not choose the OT, it had the OT thrust upon it.
I guess another example would be with Jesus' brother, James. In Paul's epistles, we can see that James was the most important of the disciples; the leader after Jesus died. As the gospels appear, James' role gets more and more reduced, until in John he does not get a mention! Jesus' brother and the firsty leader of the disciples, and he has been written out of the nasrrative.
Some also think Jude who authored the book of Jude was Jesus' other brother, It seems clear God didn't want the church to be a nepotistic kingdom. He didn't wan't the church to have a Royal family. The church is a royal family it can't embrace a head family.
dialectical retrieval. See Avery Dulles Models of revelation
I am not sure what you are saying here. How is a sacred text dialectical? How does Dulles model explain why there are errors in the text?
The relationship reader and text is dialectical. The truth of the text is discovered in that relationship. Many seeming contradictions become meaningless in that regard because a future generations my not find it contradictory,
That is a jaundiced understanding of how the canon came to be.
That does not make it wrong. The whole point of the canon was to establish an orthodoxy. Look at the first canon, Marcion's. He selected the epistles he agreed with, and edited Luke to suit. I appreciate this was later considered heresy, but then so was Origen, and his canon was pretty close to what we have today! The process for orthodoxy was the same; accept the works that fit, reject those that do not.
the act of selection mandates such a move. we have to reject most writings for the canon most are not inspired.
Because inspiration is not dictation. Besides in calling it increate you are setting up a standard that favors skepticism. What's inaccurate about it?
Divine inspiration should get it right!
that is the slippery slope fallacy
it did get it right
Why? Talk me through it Joe.
show me a contradiction
But presumably you think all the contradictions in the Bible fall into the kind of contradiction that does not matter. Hence, when I say all contradictions that is the same list as when you say contradictions that do not matter.
If I found one that really killed my faith I would stop having faith, But I found answers.
Or do you think there are contradictions that do matter?
Theoretically they all matter but it's a matter of explaining or arguing them away,
Furthermore, I am still not seeing you explain why these contradictions do not matter. Why are there errors in the Bible if God exists, and wants to promote the right message? Is he impotent to stop mankind getting it wrong? Does he not care?
I have explained this many times. God is not a big man in the sky. Inspiration is not dictation.
why do you assume the fundie version of inspiration? Because it's the hardest to defend?
That is nuts. I argue against the fundie idea all the time, see my current blog post on fundie view quashes real scholarship,
Because it is the one that makes sense. God is supposed to be all-powerful and all-knowing. Given that, we would expect him to ensure his sacred text is right. The prediction (in the scientific sense) is that the Bible should be perfect in every language.
the fundie view doesn't make sense. They are literalistic that's always problematic.
Pix:so? what's your point?
Joe: The church had to work with what it had. It did not choose the OT, it had the OT thrust upon it.
I guess another example would be with Jesus' brother, James. In Paul's epistles, we can see that James was the most important of the disciples; the leader after Jesus died. As the gospels appear, James' role gets more and more reduced, until in John he does not get a mention! Jesus' brother and the firsty leader of the disciples, and he has been written out of the nasrrative.
Some also think Jude who authored the book of Jude was Jesus' other brother, It seems clear God didn't want the church to be a nepotistic kingdom. He didn't wan't the church to have a Royal family. The church is a royal family it can't embrace a head family.
dialectical retrieval. See Avery Dulles Models of revelation
I am not sure what you are saying here. How is a sacred text dialectical? How does Dulles model explain why there are errors in the text?
The relationship reader and text is dialectical. The truth of the text is discovered in that relationship. Many seeming contradictions become meaningless in that regard because a future generations my not find it contradictory,
That is a jaundiced understanding of how the canon came to be.
That does not make it wrong. The whole point of the canon was to establish an orthodoxy. Look at the first canon, Marcion's. He selected the epistles he agreed with, and edited Luke to suit. I appreciate this was later considered heresy, but then so was Origen, and his canon was pretty close to what we have today! The process for orthodoxy was the same; accept the works that fit, reject those that do not.
the act of selection mandates such a move. we have to reject most writings for the canon most are not inspired.
Because inspiration is not dictation. Besides in calling it increate you are setting up a standard that favors skepticism. What's inaccurate about it?
Divine inspiration should get it right!
that is the slippery slope fallacy
it did get it right
Why? Talk me through it Joe.
show me a contradiction
I am going to answer this last one as the major blog piece.
my answer on pre Mark reduction is now up on the blog:
https://metacrock.blogspot.com/2022/04/is-there-pre-mark-redaction-part-1.html
Post a Comment