Contradictions in the Bible

[Nihilist Virus]

It is, for the most part, an irrefutable fact that the Bible has errors. Whether these are transcriber errors or errors in the original manuscript is not a question that has any meaning, since it cannot be verified one way or another. In fact, citing the Dead Sea Scrolls as evidence that the scribes put forth a remarkable effort in preserving the texts actually does nothing if not suggest the original manuscripts were in error.

It is a clear dichotomy that God either cannot or will not prevent these errors from occurring. Since he is omnipotent, he can prevent them, so the conclusion is that he chooses not to. Therefore, he either wants there to be errors in the Bible, or he simply does not care. Which is it and why?

In the problem of evil, God is shown to have good reasons for allowing evil to exist. But what good reason is there for allowing contradictions in the Bible? I am curious if anyone can even name one good reason.

So those are my two questions. For the purposes of this thread, the following responses will be considered off-topic:

Contradictions do not detract from Christ's sacrifice.
This is too far off topic.

It doesn't matter that the Bible has contradictions.
This is not showing how there is a good reason for them to be there.

We still understand the meaning of the passages that are in error.
This also does not show how there is a good reason for them to be there.

The passages that contradict one another are not central doctrine.
God apparently thought it was important enough to record these things twice; also, appealing to "central doctrine" takes us off topic.

The questions in this thread assume a false dichotomy.
Unless you can explicitly say what the third possibility is, I'm not interested in a proposal that goes something like, "There is a third possibility, even if we don't know what it is." This is analogous to claiming that there is an integer which is neither even nor odd, despite the fact that we haven't found it yet. No, there isn't.


If you object to the premise of my question because you believe the Bible is infallible, try your hand at refuting the following:

1. Josiah had four sons, and they are listed in order of birth (1 Chronicles 3:15). In order, they are Johanan, Jehoiakim/Eliakim, Zedekiah, and Shallum/Jehoahaz.

1a. Jehoiakim=Eliakim (2 Kings 23:34, 2 Chronicles 36:4).

1b. Shallum=Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:30, Jeremiah 22:11).

2. Jehoiakim had two sons (1 Chronicles 3:16), one of whom is named Zedekiah.

3. Note the important distinction which I will maintain: Zedekiah in bold is the son of Josiah, and Zedekiah with the underscore is the son of Jehoiakim.

"Zedekiah" was 21 years old when he became king and reigned 11 years (2 Kings 24:18). First assume this is referring to Zedekiah.

I. Jehoahaz is 23 years old when he begins to reign, and reigns for 3 months (2 Kings 23:31, 2 Chronicles 36:2).

II. Jehoiakim succeeds Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:33-34, 2 Chronicles 36:4).

III. Jehoiakim is 25 years old when he begins to reign, and reigns for 11 years (2 Kings 23:36, 2 Chronicles 36:5).

IV. Jehoiakim is succeeded by Jehoiachin, who reigns for 3 months (2 Kings 24:6-8, 2 Chronicles 36:8-9).

V. Jehoiachin is succeeded by Zedekiah (2 Kings 24:17, 2 Chronicles 36:10).

VI. Zedekiah was 21 years old when he became king, and reigns for 11 years. (2 Kings 24:18, 2 Chronicles 36:11).

VII. The chronological progression from I. to VI. tells us that Jehoahaz is 23 years old (I.) + 3 months (I.) + 11 years (III.) + 3 months (IV.) = 34.5 years old (or at least would be if he were alive) at the same time that Zedekiah is 21 years old. But 1. from the very top tells us that Jehoahaz is Zedekiah's younger brother. Therefore Zedekiah is younger than his younger brother, a contradiction.

Now assume it is Zedekiah that reigns.

Then this contradicts the prophecy given that Jehoiakim will have no offspring reign after him (Jeremiah 36:30), since Zedekiah is his son. And this is not a "bounce" on the throne because he reigns for 11 years.

QED

 

[Crandaddy]

Hi Nihilist Virus,

A question for you, if I may: Assuming (if but for the sake of argument) that there are contradictions in the Bible, do you think it's necessary for a Christian to be able to identify good reason(s) for those contradictions in order to have justified belief in Christianity, and if so, why?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Hi Nihilist Virus,

A question for you, if I may: Assuming (if but for the sake of argument) that there are contradictions in the Bible, do you think it's necessary for a Christian to be able to identify good reason(s) for those contradictions in order to have justified belief in Christianity, and if so, why?

I would say this: without inerrancy, we lose the "because it's in the Bible" defense. Why do you believe in the flood? Because it's in the Bible? Well, you can't say that now. Belief in a contradictory book necessarily means you don't believe the whole thing is true.

So you now have to consult your own intellect and reasoning instead of simply believing the Bible. And there are far too many absurdities to believe the Bible if you subject it to the same reasoning that you apply to your daily life.

 

[Crandaddy]

I would say this: without inerrancy, we lose the "because it's in the Bible" defense. Why do you believe in the flood? Because it's in the Bible? Well, you can't say that now. Belief in a contradictory book necessarily means you don't believe the whole thing is true.

So you now have to consult your own intellect and reasoning instead of simply believing the Bible. And there are far too many absurdities to believe the Bible if you subject it to the same reasoning that you apply to your daily life.

I certainly agree that the Bible can't stand on its own as the sole foundation of a reasonable and well-grounded Christian faith. And while I'm afraid that I don't have time tonight to give the argument you present above the scrutiny it deserves, it does at least appear to be sound from a prima facie analysis. However, I would just shrug this off and say so what? I don't see a problem with there being some errors and contradictions in the Bible, and apparently neither did the early Church Fathers who compiled it. Those guys knew their Scriptures backwards and forwards and could recite whole books from memory, and yet perhaps the most obvious contradiction in the Bible -- i.e., the two contradictory creation accounts -- was admitted to the canon apparently without issue. Don't you think that's something they would have noticed?

Honestly, I can only see this being a serious issue for strict Biblical literalists and inerrantists, of which I am neither. So unless I can see some reason why this should concern me, then I really don't care. The strict sola scriptura position runs into some very serious problems, which is why we Anglicans rely on our three-legged stool: Scripture, sacred Tradition, and reason.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I would say this: without inerrancy, we lose the "because it's in the Bible" defense. Why do you believe in the flood? Because it's in the Bible? Well, you can't say that now. Belief in a contradictory book necessarily means you don't believe the whole thing is true.

So you now have to consult your own intellect and reasoning instead of simply believing the Bible. And there are far too many absurdities to believe the Bible if you subject it to the same reasoning that you apply to your daily life.

This reflects a view of the Bible that I'd say most Christians simply don't have. The only sorts of people that are going to have a view of the Bible that you are presenting are almost certainly going to subscribe to the idea of inerrancy anyway, and thus this will simply be an argument over whether the Bible has contradictions and errors or not. For those of us who don't believe in inerrancy, our view of Scripture is going to almost certainly be, at the very least, far more nuanced than you present it.

Let's just take me as one example: I don't believe the flood mentioned in Genesis happened historically. I don't believe that's the point of the story. So I'm more interested in the point of the story and what the author is trying to communicate and how that fits into the larger narrative of Scripture which, as a Christian, I see as reaching its culmination in the Incarnation, in Jesus Christ.

I don't need a woodenly literal, inerrant text to be an effective and efficacious text through which God speaks His word and presents the grace and gospel of Christ to me; the Bible need only be what it is, as it is.

The authority of Scripture isn't in that it is woodenly literal or inerrant, but in that it is and contains the word of God; most importantly it speaks the one Word of God, Jesus Christ. As St. Augustine says, all of Scripture contains but one Utterance, that Utterance is Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I certainly agree that the Bible can't stand on its own as the sole foundation of a reasonable and well-grounded Christian faith. And while I'm afraid that I don't have time tonight to give the argument you present above the scrutiny it deserves, it does at least appear to be sound from a prima facie analysis. However, I would just shrug this off and say so what? I don't see a problem with there being some errors and contradictions in the Bible, and apparently neither did the early Church Fathers who compiled it. Those guys knew their Scriptures backwards and forwards and could recite whole books from memory, and yet perhaps the most obvious contradiction in the Bible -- i.e., the two contradictory creation accounts -- was admitted to the canon apparently without issue. Don't you think that's something they would have noticed?

I would not argue that the two creation accounts in early Genesis contradict one another, and there is a way for an inerrancy believer to wiggle out of it, so that's not an argument I would ever present. Regardless, you are presenting even more contradictions in the Bible in order to defend the Bible... which I find to be quite bizarre. I understand you are saying that internal consistency is not a requirement to you, but you still have not told me whether you believe God wants there to be contradictions, or if he simply does not care, and why. Belief in an infallible Bible is not necessary to reply to this thread; in fact, the Bible's fallibility is an assumed premise. If you have no answers to provide to my two questions, I do not understand what it is you intend to contribute here.

Honestly, I can only see this being a serious issue for strict Biblical literalists and inerrantists, of which I am neither.

Again, the thread is not intended for literalists or inerrantists, and in fact I only address them with the footnote. You continue to skirt the issue as if your beliefs make my questions inapplicable to you, when in fact you are exactly the type of person they apply to.

So unless I can see some reason why this should concern me, then I really don't care.

Am I to understand this is your answer for God? That he does not care if there are contradictions or not? Why is this so?

The strict sola scriptura position runs into some very serious problems, which is why we Anglicans rely on our three-legged stool: Scripture, sacred Tradition, and reason.

An interesting three pillars you present, given everything else you've said.

The Bible must be met with scrutiny, since it is fallible, and hence has no authority;

Sacred tradition is a strange thing to champion... you must understand that to an outsider, the church's history is filled to the brim with atrocities and otherwise regrettable things;

And as for reason... you'll have to pardon me, but what are you applying reason to? Reason drives facts into a logical conclusion. Your religion starts with a preconceived conclusion and then works backwards through facts to support it. This is simply not what reason is.

 

[ViaCrucis]

you still have not told me whether you believe God wants there to be contradictions, or if he simply does not care

What God wants or doesn't want would be neither here nor there.

I would argue both your options are unselectable.

It's not what God wants, nor is it about God being apathetic to it; but rather the role and purpose of the Bible in the life of the Church as the locus of God's living word speaking and calling to us that we might be properly humbled and repentant by the preaching of the Law and made alive and given faith through the preaching of the Gospel.

What does God want? I have no idea, I'm not God. It's also a non-issue for me since I believe, in faith, that God uses His written word to the benefit of His Church through the faithful and proper preaching of both Law and Gospel.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Nihilist Virus]

This reflects a view of the Bible that I'd say most Christians simply don't have. The only sorts of people that are going to have a view of the Bible that you are presenting are almost certainly going to subscribe to the idea of inerrancy anyway, and thus this will simply be an argument over whether the Bible has contradictions and errors or not. For those of us who don't believe in inerrancy, our view of Scripture is going to almost certainly be, at the very least, far more nuanced than you present it.

What you are saying here makes no sense as a response to what you quoted from me. I said,

I would say this: without inerrancy, we lose the "because it's in the Bible" defense. Why do you believe in the flood? Because it's in the Bible? Well, you can't say that now. Belief in a contradictory book necessarily means you don't believe the whole thing is true.

So you now have to consult your own intellect and reasoning instead of simply believing the Bible. And there are far too many absurdities to believe the Bible if you subject it to the same reasoning that you apply to your daily life.

What part of this is "a view of the Bible that most Christians simply don't have"? The part where I say we have to subject the Bible to logic? Or are you saying you really do believe anything in the Bible, despite knowing there are contradictions? (And I am confused on what that would actually entail.)

Let's just take me as one example: I don't believe the flood mentioned in Genesis happened historically. I don't believe that's the point of the story. So I'm more interested in the point of the story and what the author is trying to communicate and how that fits into the larger narrative of Scripture which, as a Christian, I see as reaching its culmination in the Incarnation, in Jesus Christ.

Firstly, if there's anything that the flood story is trying to communicate, I don't think it is the coming of the messiah. Secondly, as I told Crandaddy,

Again, the thread is not intended for literalists or inerrantists, and in fact I only address them with the footnote. You continue to skirt the issue as if your beliefs make my questions inapplicable to you, when in fact you are exactly the type of person they apply to.

I don't need a woodenly literal, inerrant text to be an effective and efficacious text through which God speaks His word and presents the grace and gospel of Christ to me; the Bible need only be what it is, as it is.

Quite off topic here. Also, I think the Bible would be a lot better if we were to redact the first 7 books. Keeping the Bible "as is" leaves us with a lot of genocide committed by conquesting invaders at the behest of a deity that is supposed to be in the same Godhead as the benevolent savior of mankind.

The authority of Scripture isn't in that it is woodenly literal or inerrant, but in that it is and contains the word of God; most importantly it speaks the one Word of God, Jesus Christ. As St. Augustine says, all of Scripture contains but one Utterance, that Utterance is Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

If you have nothing to say about my two questions, then I don't know what it is you feel you are contributing to this thread.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

What God wants or doesn't want would be neither here nor there.

Huh?

I would argue both your options are unselectable.

Off topic. Recall I said this:

The questions in this thread assume a false dichotomy.
Unless you can explicitly say what the third possibility is, I'm not interested in a proposal that goes something like, "There is a third possibility, even if we don't know what it is." This is analogous to claiming that there is an integer which is neither even nor odd, despite the fact that we haven't found it yet. No, there isn't.

It's not what God wants, nor is it about God being apathetic to it; but rather the role and purpose of the Bible in the life of the Church as the locus of God's living word speaking and calling to us that we might be properly humbled and repentant by the preaching of the Law and made alive and given faith through the preaching of the Gospel.

Off topic.

What does God want? I have no idea, I'm not God. It's also a non-issue for me since I believe, in faith, that God uses His written word to the benefit of His Church through the faithful and proper preaching of both Law and Gospel.

-CryptoLutheran

Off topic.

You are not answering my questions. I suspect that you would provide answers if you had them. Therefore, you don't have these answers.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

It is, for the most part, an irrefutable fact that the Bible has errors. Whether these are transcriber errors or errors in the original manuscript is not a question that has any meaning, since it cannot be verified one way or another. In fact, citing the Dead Sea Scrolls as evidence that the scribes put forth a remarkable effort in preserving the texts actually does nothing if not suggest the original manuscripts were in error.

It is a clear dichotomy that God either cannot or will not prevent these errors from occurring. Since he is omnipotent, he can prevent them, so the conclusion is that he chooses not to. Therefore, he either wants there to be errors in the Bible, or he simply does not care. Which is it and why?

In the problem of evil, God is shown to have good reasons for allowing evil to exist. But what good reason is there for allowing contradictions in the Bible? I am curious if anyone can even name one good reason.

So those are my two questions. For the purposes of this thread, the following responses will be considered off-topic:

Contradictions do not detract from Christ's sacrifice.
This is too far off topic.

It doesn't matter that the Bible has contradictions.
This is not showing how there is a good reason for them to be there.

We still understand the meaning of the passages that are in error.
This also does not show how there is a good reason for them to be there.

The passages that contradict one another are not central doctrine.
God apparently thought it was important enough to record these things twice; also, appealing to "central doctrine" takes us off topic.

The questions in this thread assume a false dichotomy.
Unless you can explicitly say what the third possibility is, I'm not interested in a proposal that goes something like, "There is a third possibility, even if we don't know what it is." This is analogous to claiming that there is an integer which is neither even nor odd, despite the fact that we haven't found it yet. No, there isn't.


If you object to the premise of my question because you believe the Bible is infallible, try your hand at refuting the following:

This is a valid question, and it deserves a valid answer; however, contradictions and transcription errors are two different matters, and they would be best discussed separately. You are using both terms interchangeably, which makes it difficult to answer your question(s).

 

[Nihilist Virus]

This is a valid question, and it deserves a valid answer; however, contradictions and transcription errors are two different matters, and they would be best discussed separately. You are using both terms interchangeably, which makes it difficult to answer your question(s).

I have provided a contradiction which cannot be attributed to transcriber error since all relevant information from both accounts agree.

Also, feel free to answer my question in any way you like. Clarify the difference beforehand if you want.

 

[Crandaddy]

I would not argue that the two creation accounts in early Genesis contradict one another, and there is a way for an inerrancy believer to wiggle out of it, so that's not an argument I would ever present. Regardless, you are presenting even more contradictions in the Bible in order to defend the Bible... which I find to be quite bizarre. I understand you are saying that internal consistency is not a requirement to you, but you still have not told me whether you believe God wants there to be contradictions, or if he simply does not care, and why.

If there are contradictions in the Bible, then it is part of God's plan for them to be there. My question to you is why do I have to tell you why they're there? Maybe they convey some meaning that hasn't yet been revealed to us. If you wish to argue that for Christians to be justified in believing that Scripture is inspired, they must be able to state the inspired meaning behind every error or contradiction contained therein, then the burden is on you to explain why this must be so.

Again, the thread is not intended for literalists or inerrantists, and in fact I only address them with the footnote. You continue to skirt the issue as if your beliefs make my questions inapplicable to you, when in fact you are exactly the type of person they apply to.

And so once again I'll say that if there are contradictions or errors in the Bible, then it's God's plan for them to be there, and once again I'll ask: Why is it so devastating to Christianity if we can't explicate the precise inspired meaning behind every passage of Scripture, as you seem to be implying?

Am I to understand this is your answer for God? That he does not care if there are contradictions or not? Why is this so?

I won't ever presume to answer for God, and I believe he does care and that there is some meaning behind them. What I mean is that because I'm not a strict literalist or inerrantist, it doesn't especially bother me that there are errors and contradictions in the Bible, and I don't worry myself too much over what inspired meaning might be behind them, because the Holy Spirit might not have revealed that information to us yet. It's not the least bit problematic that there might be some mysteries that God has yet to reveal to us.

An interesting three pillars you present, given everything else you've said.

The Bible must be met with scrutiny, since it is fallible, and hence has no authority;

That the Bible has errors and contradictions does not imply that it is not inspired or that it has no authority. Errors imply that the human authors were fallible (hardly surprising), and contradictions imply that contradictory passages can't all be coherently believed in their literal senses at the same time. Beyond this, nothing further can be demonstrated, and this includes that God doesn't have reasons for allowing such passages to be there. Once again, if I have some obligation to explain to you what those reasons are on pain of being forced to abandon rational belief in Christianity, then the onus is on you to explain why.

Sacred tradition is a strange thing to champion... you must understand that to an outsider, the church's history is filled to the brim with atrocities and otherwise regrettable things;

There is a saying that the Church is a hospital for sinners, not a showcase of saints. Yes, "Christians" have done some very terrible things -- no reasonable person who knows anything about Church history would claim otherwise -- but Christians have also done some very good things. Furthermore, didn't the teachings of Jesus Christ himself center on love and compassion -- even for one's enemies? To be a Christian is to be one who tries to follow the Way of Christ and the saints who stayed true to that Way. Those who stray from that Way and into sin and evil don't get to redefine what Christianity is.

And as for reason... you'll have to pardon me, but what are you applying reason to? Reason drives facts into a logical conclusion. Your religion starts with a preconceived conclusion and then works backwards through facts to support it.

Does it? What precisely do you think this “preconceived conclusion” encompasses, and do you really think that those who hold it have absolutely no reasons for doing so? Moreover, it should be noted that nothing can be demonstrated if nothing is assumed from the outset, and to assume from the outset that every relevant set of veridical assumptions would lead to the conclusion that Christianity is either false or irrational would be to start off with a preconceived conclusion, would it not?

 

[ChetSinger]

If you object to the premise of my question because you believe the Bible is infallible, try your hand at refuting the following:

I was unfamiliar with this so I looked into it. Dr. Roddy Braun's commentary on 1 Chronicles speculates that there were two Zedekiahs who were confused by later copyists.

Some details about it can be found at: http://www.tektonics.org/TK-1CHR.php

I'm not bothered by copyist mistakes so this isn't an issue for me.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I was unfamiliar with this so I looked into it. Dr. Roddy Braun's commentary on 1 Chronicles speculates that there were two Zedekiahs who were confused by later copyists.

He speculates there were two Zedekiahs? How is it speculation? If he took the time to read 1 Chronicles 3:15-16, it would be quite clear there are two. No speculation required. Furthermore, I spelled this out quite explicitly in my argument. Did you read my argument?

Some details about it can be found at: http://www.tektonics.org/TK-1CHR.php

Why is 1 Chronicles 3:16 absent from that list? That is the verse that names the second Zedekiah.

I'm not bothered by copyist mistakes so this isn't an issue for me.

How many problems does the Bible have to have until you will have a problem?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

If there are contradictions in the Bible, then it is part of God's plan for them to be there.

That is an odd plan. Care to elaborate?

My question to you is why do I have to tell you why they're there?

Because this is the apologetics forum.

Maybe they convey some meaning that hasn't yet been revealed to us.

It's been thousands of years. How long do we have to wait?

If you wish to argue that for Christians to be justified in believing that Scripture is inspired, they must be able to state the inspired meaning behind every error or contradiction contained therein, then the burden is on you to explain why this must be so.

You are dangling yourself quite dangerously here. You are in fact not justified in believing in scripture, fallible or otherwise, because it has come nowhere near meeting the burden of proof. To spin this and place the burden back onto me is shenanigans. I have made no actual claims here other than that contradictions are present, a claim which I supported with proof. Aside from this I posed questions, and questions do not require any justification.

And so once again I'll say that if there are contradictions or errors in the Bible, then it's God's plan for them to be there, and once again I'll ask: Why is it so devastating to Christianity if we can't explicate the precise inspired meaning behind every passage of Scripture, as you seem to be implying?

Once again, you lose the "because it's in the Bible" defense. You are not justified in believing anything that is in the Bible simply because it's in the Bible. That is a fact. It is then quite inescapable that you must scrutinize the Bible with your own intellect and reason, a process which will be devastating.

I won't ever presume to answer for God, and I believe he does care and that there is some meaning behind them.

So someone incorrectly recorded the age of a king, or the number of horses in a stable, and you are saying there is meaning to that beyond what is in the text?

What I mean is that because I'm not a strict literalist or inerrantist, it doesn't especially bother me that there are errors and contradictions in the Bible, and I don't worry myself too much over what inspired meaning might be behind them, because the Holy Spirit might not have revealed that information to us yet. It's not the least bit problematic that there might be some mysteries that God has yet to reveal to us.

I can find it reasonable to say that the errors do not destroy your faith. But you are unreasonable if you do not realize that you must chuck the Bible into the logic grinder to see what comes out the other side. And it is quite clear that many Christians, of which you may or may not be included, will not go through this process because they believe the Bible a priori, which is simply not reasonable.

That the Bible has errors and contradictions does not imply that it is not inspired or that it has no authority.

And what is there to imply that it does have authority?

Errors imply that the human authors were fallible (hardly surprising), and contradictions imply that contradictory passages can't all be coherently believed in their literal senses at the same time.

Agreed, although it is rather slippery of you to suggest that these obviously literal passages about ages, dates, and numbers might not be entirely literal.

Beyond this, nothing further can be demonstrated, and this includes that God doesn't have reasons for allowing such passages to be there.

Do you have any actual reason for believing that God has reasons for these things? I fully admit that I cannot show God has no good reasons for allowing these errors to propagate; you, conversely, clearly cannot show that God does have good reasons for allowing these errors to propagate; what we are left with is a stalemate and a Bible that has been stained with contradictions.

My chief grievance is that these errors are generally hidden as best as possible by churches, and never plainly discussed at the pulpits. Combined with the reckless indoctrination of hellfire into young minds and the complete lack of resources provided to those who need exit counseling from the faith, I was certainly set up for disillusionment when I was left to seek God on my own.

Once again, if I have some obligation to explain to you what those reasons are on pain of being forced to abandon rational belief in Christianity, then the onus is on you to explain why.

Abandon rational belief in Christianity? How can you claim to have had rational belief to begin with? I suspect that you start with the a priori belief in Jesus, the resurrection, and the forgiveness of sins... or am I wrong, and is it instead the case that these beliefs are conditional upon some other facts which you find to be more inseparable from reality?

There is a saying that the Church is a hospital for sinners, not a showcase of saints. Yes, "Christians" have done some very terrible things -- no reasonable person who knows anything about Church history would claim otherwise -- but Christians have also done some very good things. Furthermore, didn't the teachings of Jesus Christ himself center on love and compassion -- even for one's enemies? To be a Christian is to be one who tries to follow the Way of Christ and the saints who stayed true to that Way. Those who stray from that Way and into sin and evil don't get to redefine what Christianity is.

So first you say one of your pillars is sacred tradition, which I have pointed out is more than tainted, and you fall back on "the church has done some good" and then promptly lean heavily on what Jesus said. If sacred tradition is a pillar, it's not supposed to lean on the pillar of scripture. That would mean it in fact is not a pillar.

Does it? What precisely do you think this “preconceived conclusion” encompasses, and do you really think that those who hold it have absolutely no reasons for doing so?

In short, I think your preconceived conclusion is that Jesus is God and savior of mankind, and I do not think there is anything that can be shown to you that will make you change your mind. This means that the position is not based on reason. In fairness, I am putting words in your mouth here, but I would still be correct if I say that the majority of Christians can be described in this manner.

Moreover, it should be noted that nothing can be demonstrated if nothing is assumed from the outset,

I agree that axioms, or assumptions, are required from the outset in order to demonstrate anything. I do not subscribe to any assumptions, and that is why I am a nihilist. Logic is not some set of statements that are absolutely true; logic is conditional, and, at its core, is entirely meaningless since all symbols in logic decompose into primitive symbols which have no meaning, with the ultimate joke being that no logical statement can ever have any actual meaning.

and to assume from the outset that every relevant set of veridical assumptions would lead to the conclusion that Christianity is either false or irrational would be to start off with a preconceived conclusion, would it not?

I do not know why you are suggesting that I am assuming from the outset that Christianity is logically doomed. I was a Christian for two decades.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

My chief grievance is that these errors are generally hidden as best as possible by churches, and never plainly discussed at the pulpits. Combined with the reckless indoctrination of hellfire into young minds and the complete lack of resources provided to those who need exit counseling from the faith, I was certainly set up for disillusionment when I was left to seek God on my own.

I wish that you would had have led with. Knowing the reason for you question is helpful in answering it.

There are countless Christians who do not even attempt to think through their faith. In fact, many equate faith with not thinking. That is both unbiblical and unhealthy. Faith is based on facts. Faith is not closing my eyes and wishing, it's opening them and thinking.

Expository preaching works through an entire book of the Bible, so there is no avoiding of any subject or difficult text. That's what many Presbyterian churches practice. It used to be the norm for all churches, but topical preaching and entertainment-driven worship services have unfortunately become the norm.

There are simple people out there who don't understand theology very well, there are nuts in pulpits, and there are false teachers in churches, we are warned of such, so we have to keep these things in mind. Every person who claims to be a Christian is not, and the same for every preacher/teacher. Scaring kids is not acceptable.

Getting back to the OP, there are no true contradictions in the Bible. There are apparent contradictions and there are clerical/copylist errors in manuscripts. Your example has a couple of good explanations, which I'm sure you are aware of already. Why God did not prevent errors in transcription would only be a guess on my part, and why would you want my guess? Would that really help with the underlying issues you have with Christianity?

BTW, I like you screen name. I see Nihilism as intellectually honest Atheism, and I like intellectual honesty. I was a nihilist a long time ago (although I didn't have a term for it then).

Brian

 

[ChetSinger]

He speculates there were two Zedekiahs? How is it speculation? If he took the time to read 1 Chronicles 3:15-16, it would be quite clear there are two. No speculation required. Furthermore, I spelled this out quite explicitly in my argument. Did you read my argument?

You've found an internal discrepancy, yes. That discrepancy has an origin, but what is it? Braun reveals that Greek and Hebrew copies differ in these passages. So, he speculates that copyists were confused. That sounds reasonable to me, but I'm not going to spend $36 to read his detailed speculation.

How many problems does the Bible have to have until you will have a problem?

There are hundreds of thousands of copyist mistakes among the thousands of NT manuscripts we have. They don't bother me because I don't see anywhere in scriptures where God says he's going to prevent them.

 

[Hawkins]

1. We don't have the original copy of the Bible at all. All we have now is the copies of the copies.

2. Bible translation languages advance along time with the advancement of human languages. Say, today's English is very different from the English 2000 years ago. God allows humans to have the Bible written in the update to date language.

3. In order to stand the court of Heaven, God allows true human witnessing to interact. God maintains the accuracy to the extent that it's a valid document which is delivered by true human witnessing while conveying God's message of salvation correctly for the designated humans to be saved.

The Bible is a perfect writing to achieve all the above.

 

[Arythmael]

Nihilist Virus,

I think that the members, "thatbrian" and "Hawkins", have provided some excellent answers to your question. And if I understand your question/statement correctly, it sounds like you are basically claiming that since the Bible contains logical errors, we can find fault in the Christian belief because it either means God wants there to be errors or doesn't care, the first of which has no rational explanation (the challenge), the second of which creates a contradiction with the Christian belief that "God cares about truth."

Is this correct?

I would start by forcing us to clarify your statement about the Bible containing logical errors. My understanding is that a great many apparent contradictions -- between the Bible and both science and history, and even between verses within the Bible itself -- have been provided with explanations by various scholars over the centuries, explanations that show they are not contradictions after all. Certainly, counterarguments have been laid against those explanations, but the debate about most of these apparent contradictions goes on today, unresolved. Web sites defending Biblical claims are everywhere, as I'm sure you know. So it is not so cut and dry as to say that the presence of logical errors in the Bible is "irrefutable". And furthermore, the ability or inability of a small group of forum members here to disprove one of your examples is not going to provide you definitive proof one way or the other about whether such logical errors exist. Most of us are not scholars, and our research is not exhaustive.

I think the best we can say, definitively, is that apparent logical errors do exist. And it is a valid question to ask why God would allow these apparent contradictions, because clearly if He exists and is omnipotent, He could have prevented them.

I believe the answer lies in the fact that the nature of the loving relationship God wants with man requires man to choose that relationship while remaining integrated with his rational mind (these are attributes we "inherited" as being made in God's image). Consider this for a minute.

If, from a human perspective, it were possible to prove without any doubt that communication from God to mankind had errors (contradictions), then man would have to split his rational mind from his faith and his trust in God (effectually throwing away his faith, like you did). But we see that there is always debate going on about these errors, and my claim is that there is no such proof which leaves absolutely no doubt. On the other hand, if the verity of that communication were perfectly irrefutable, then a man who did not want to trust in God would also have to split his rational mind from his desire to reject who God is (which should be his right). His rational mind, using no spiritual evidence whatsoever, would demand that he believe, follow and obey. This is not what God wants. So this perfectly irrefutable nature of proof that you require as a nihilist is actually not beneficial to you, nor to mankind in general, in terms of what God wants.

There remains the philosophical question of weighing evidence, which you did not bring up. On that matter I think we are looking at a situation where there are mounds of evidence in favor of a given conclusion, and I must weigh that against the existence of what may be evidence for the opposite conclusion which as yet has no counterargument. Your philosophy may be to say that as long as at least one piece of evidence against a concept stands unanswered, then we should refuse to believe that concept. This is the nihilist position perhaps? But of course this is the very crux of the disagreement in this thread, because Christian's are not nihilists, and reject that idea. We have clearly believed that even though some pieces of evidence against a concept may remain unanswered, is it sufficient that much more evidence exists in favor of that concept such that it is far more valuable to proceed using the premise that it is true (non-nihilist) than not to proceed at all (a true nihilist position).

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I wish that you would had have led with. Knowing the reason for you question is helpful in answering it.

There are countless Christians who do not even attempt to think through their faith. In fact, many equate faith with not thinking. That is both unbiblical and unhealthy. Faith is based on facts. Faith is not closing my eyes and wishing, it's opening them and thinking.

A fascinating proposal. Are you saying that you do not believe in Jesus, the resurrection, and the forgiveness of sins a priori but rather as a logical conclusion from basic, irrefutable facts?

Expository preaching works through an entire book of the Bible, so there is no avoiding of any subject or difficult text. That's what many Presbyterian churches practice. It used to be the norm for all churches, but topical preaching and entertainment-driven worship services have unfortunately become the norm.

I would be utterly stunned if this actually happened. Do you have any sermons on YouTube you can show me where they do this?

There are simple people out there who don't understand theology very well, there are nuts in pulpits, and there are false teachers in churches, we are warned of such, so we have to keep these things in mind. Every person who claims to be a Christian is not, and the same for every preacher/teacher. Scaring kids is not acceptable.

Agreed.

Getting back to the OP, there are no true contradictions in the Bible.

Quite the bombshell. The OP was supposed to defer you to my Zedekiah contradiction. Did you read it?

There are apparent contradictions and there are clerical/copylist errors in manuscripts.

If the originals were perfect and the copies have errors, then why do the Dead Sea Scrolls show us that the transcription process was nearly perfect?

Your example has a couple of good explanations, which I'm sure you are aware of already.

I have posed this question to many people. Most people skirt entirely around the issue, refusing to answer. Those who actually address it admit that there is an error. In fact, the explanation is usually just the isolation of which verse is in error and the assertion that the rest of the verses are in harmony.

Why God did not prevent errors in transcription would only be a guess on my part, and why would you want my guess? Would that really help with the underlying issues you have with Christianity?

I cannot have faith in something that is self-contradictory, particularly if no one can give me a good reason as to why it is.

Are you saying it is reasonable to be expected, on the threat of eternal hellfire, to believe in something that is contradictory?

BTW, I like you screen name. I see Nihilism as intellectually honest Atheism, and I like intellectual honesty. I was a nihilist a long time ago (although I didn't have a term for it then).

Brian

Why did you stop being a nihilist?