Contradictions

[Resha Caner]

Preamble: I sometimes wonder why it is that for all the different questions posed here, many conversations seem to gravitate to the same themes: God, omni-properties, free will, physicalism, existence, knowing, etc. Maybe it's just because of the positions of those who post here, but I wonder if there are other reasons. I mean, it seems the discussion hasn't changed since Adam and Eve.

In a similar way, I puzzle over those who continue to raise questions about supposed problems with the Bible. I mean, if you're 16 and this is the first time you've heard these things, I suppose it's part of the process of discovery. But for those of us who've put more than a few years behind us, it would seem there is a realization that this is nothing new.

Discussions on Biblical consistency are as old as the Bible. Augustine wrote about it at a time when the Bible was such a new collection of texts that in a letter to Jerome he refers to it as "those books of Scripture which are now called canonical."

Inerrancy: Roman Catholic views on the Bible's infallability and inerrancy

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume VI/The Harmony of the Gospels - Wikisource, the free online library

Finally, the questions:
1. As an unbeliever, why do you think Christians remain Christian when the inconsistencies have been known for so long? (Though I'm sure someone will say it, I'll try to poison the well and say I'm not interested in answers like, "Because they're a deluded bunch of lunatics" or "Because they're insecure and need a crutch." Rather, I'll lead into question 2 ...)
2. As an unbeliever, why do you think no one has ever successfully corrected all those errors and reissued the "Newly Inspired Version" (NIV for those who get the joke) of the Bible?
3. As an unbeliever, are there any examples promoted as problems that you have decided are not problems?

4. For believers, do you think all the supposed problems are not problems? Or ...
5. Do you believe problems exist, but they don't affect the message?
6. For believers, even if you believe the Bible doesn't have problems, are there some that still niggle at you, where you don't really have a satisfactory answer yet?

 

[essentialsaltes]

"1. As an unbeliever, why do you think Christians remain Christian when the inconsistencies have been known for so long?"

I see (at least) three different groups:

A) Some Christians are content with their (limited) knowledge of the Bible, and incurious about investigating potential problems. Doing so might cause them discomfort, so they would just rather not, and rely on their leaders and experts from the inside of Christianity who tell them everything is fine, and they avoid any criticisms from outside.

B) Some Christians come to understand that, whatever else it may be, the Bible is a product of human authors from a particular historical milieu. Thus, it is not necessary to believe that the text is literal and inerrant. Sacrificing inerrancy does not require one to sacrifice faith.

C) Some Christians *do* require inerrancy, and *do* investigate the matter. And when they come into contact with potential inconsistancies, this produces what Festinger called 'cognitive dissonance' in his seminal book When Prophecy Fails (which despite the title, is about believers in a 'UFO cult' rather than a traditional religion). Some few of these Christians may lose their religion. Others will slide into Christians of variety 'B' above. But the surprising thing that Festinger found is that even in the face of contradiction, the psychological reaction was for believers to become even stronger and more adamant in their faith.
So Christians of this sort circle the wagons and work on rationalizations to try to suppress the cognitive dissonance. And whenever they run into contrary information, they just double-down again and get even more fervent, and stretch even further to suppress the cognitive dissonance.

"2. As an unbeliever, why do you think no one has ever successfully corrected all those errors and reissued the "Newly Inspired Version""

For better or worse, the text is the text, and while there can be some quibbles about textual variations, and scribal errors, and huge arguments about proper translation, there is only so much you can change. Every new translation is harshly criticized. A 'corrected' text would have no authority, as no one but a fervent follower of the translator would believe the new edition was 'inspired'.

"3. As an unbeliever, are there any examples promoted as problems that you have decided are not problems?"

One contradiction (or error) I've seen among lists is that the bowl in the Temple implies that pi = 3:

1 Kings 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

To me, as I read that, I have no reason to believe that it was intended as an exact mathematical truth. For me, the text says, "The dingus was about 10 cubits across and about 30 cubits around." Which is close enough for me. So I do not consider this an error in the Bible.
However, to the hyperliteralist 'C' group, this actually causes them some cognitive dissonance. So you will often see this 'error' explained by saying that Solomon measured its diameter from the outer lip to the outer lip, but measured the circumference along the inner lip of the bowl, such that both numbers are exactly precise and correct.

 

[Resha Caner]

I see (at least) three different groups:

I don't doubt that your A, B, and C groups happen. So you don't think there is a group D? A possibility of a dialectic that finds resolution which is more than mere rationalization?

A 'corrected' text would have no authority, as no one but a fervent follower of the translator would believe the new edition was 'inspired'.

Sure. But every movement has to start somewhere. Jesus started with zero followers. I would assume it could happen again. And some people have tried to rewrite the Bible: Jefferson, Twain, etc.

I dunno. I'd almost expect a smart con man would have already tried to fix the genealogy in Matthew, correct the cosmological language, etc. and issue an NIV.

One contradiction (or error) I've seen among lists is that the bowl in the Temple implies that pi = 3:

Yeah, that one always annoys me. I mean really? All people accomplish when they tout this one is to demonstrate their lack of knowledge about mathematics, measurement theory, and history.

1) What is pi to one significant digit? 3
2) Does the text claim the bowl was a perfect circle? No
3) What was the ability of people in Solomon's time to manufacture a precise bowl and then precisely measure it? Probably not that good.
4) What did other societies of the time know about pi? That it was approximately 3, but not exactly, a little bit bigger. Not much more than that.

I'm glad you don't hold on to that one, but I thought there might be something a little more substantial.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Finally, the questions:
1. As an unbeliever, why do you think Christians remain Christian when the inconsistencies have been known for so long?

Because:
1) Not all Christians are aware of them,
2) Not all Christians aware of them have the capacity to properly understand them - they may come up with specious arguments to explain them way, or may be swayed by the specious arguments of others.
3) Of those Christians who are aware of them and have the capacity to properly understand them, at least some are swayed and become non-Christians.

So the number of Christians you're talking about (those who know of, understand, and are unswayed by, the inconsistencies) is quite a bit smaller than the number of Christians in total.

So, why do those Christians, who know of and understand the arguments, remain unswayed? Any number of reasons. The comfort of faith ("I just don't want to stop believing"), the blindness of faith ("I see what you're saying, but I have faith nonetheless"), sheer peer pressure ("my family/community would disown/kill me"), a technicality ("Ah, but that's not the God/religion/etc that I adhere to"), a genuinely satisfactory explanation, etc (not that these apply to all Christians, but they are reasons used by some nonetheless).

2. As an unbeliever, why do you think no one has ever successfully corrected all those errors and reissued the "Newly Inspired Version" (NIV for those who get the joke) of the Bible?

Because the Bible's authenticity is held as sacrosanct, and to tamper with it is seen as the gravest of sins. That said, your joke rather hits the nail on the head: the Bible has been rewritten, and many times.

3. As an unbeliever, are there any examples promoted as problems that you have decided are not problems?

Sure, one that is both common and very easily explain without resorting to contrivances or ad hoc addenda, is "The Bible says π = 3". Another common one with a less well-understood explanation involves the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; in Hebrew, such phraseology doesn't mean the tree contained knowledge of morality, rather it means it contained all knowledge both good and evil.

The inverse of these is Romans 1:20 - it's an inexplicably infuriating anti-explanation often lobbed in our direction.

 

[Gadarene]

They may be old problems, but they're hardly resolved ones.

 

[Gadarene]

Finally, the questions:
1. As an unbeliever, why do you think Christians remain Christian when the inconsistencies have been known for so long? (Though I'm sure someone will say it, I'll try to poison the well and say I'm not interested in answers like, "Because they're a deluded bunch of lunatics" or "Because they're insecure and need a crutch." Rather, I'll lead into question 2 ...)

In my experience - sheer gonads-to-the-wall denial, in quite a lot of cases. Some Christians may not engage in this, but I've more often been witness to outright denial that there is any contradiction or inconsistency at all in the Bible. Creative-but-not-very-plausible reinterpretation of verses is the tool often used to circumvent these problems.

In the rest of the cases, a lot of Christians just don't seem to be confronted with them. The only people who brought these arguments up to me initially weren't Christians - and there was no sign of these arguments being old hat among the Christians I knew. As far as I could tell, the non-Christians were coming up with original arguments (to me at least).

And as I said earlier, these objections may well be old, but they are hardly resolved.

2. As an unbeliever, why do you think no one has ever successfully corrected all those errors and reissued the "Newly Inspired Version" (NIV for those who get the joke) of the Bible?

Broadly speaking, good luck getting Christians to amend systematic mistakes, it's an uphill struggle. Claiming books/actions to be the perfect, inspired words/actions of a deity will have that effect.

3. As an unbeliever, are there any examples promoted as problems that you have decided are not problems?

Not that I can think of. I guess I'll put down pi=3 as well?

 

[essentialsaltes]

I don't doubt that your A, B, and C groups happen. So you don't think there is a group D? A possibility of a dialectic that finds resolution which is more than mere rationalization?

With respect to 'errors' like pi = 3, yes. But I think there are contradictions that don't have a happy resolution for the literalist-inerrantist. Just as an example, the contortions that apologists go through to harmonize Judas' death and the purchase of the potters' field strike me, as an outsider, as incredible rationalizations.

 

[Paradoxum]

Finally, the questions:
1. As an unbeliever, why do you think Christians remain Christian when the inconsistencies have been known for so long? (Though I'm sure someone will say it, I'll try to poison the well and say I'm not interested in answers like, "Because they're a deluded bunch of lunatics" or "Because they're insecure and need a crutch." Rather, I'll lead into question 2 ...)

Well it is probably different for different types of people. So Christians might just not think about things like that all that much. They just aren't the sort of people who think about theology, apologetics, etc. If such people come across a problem they might just assume that someone has an answer for it, otherwise they wouldn't teach that the Bible is infallible.

For others it is because there are plausible answers to the contradictions. A common answer to how many angels were at the tomb is something like, if it says there was one angel doesn't mean there weren't more than weren't mentioned. If there were two it would be true to say there was one. Something like that. Mental gymnastics and loopholes.

The contradiction I remember most is Judas' death. It is totally understandable that people cover up the contradictions with clever ways out. I did it myself.

2. As an unbeliever, why do you think no one has ever successfully corrected all those errors and reissued the "Newly Inspired Version" (NIV for those who get the joke) of the Bible?

I get the jokey.

Well people would think it was wrong to tamper with the Bible like that.

3. As an unbeliever, are there any examples promoted as problems that you have decided are not problems?

Probably. I just can't remember all the claimed contradictions right now.

After googling it, some of the claimed contradictions seem petty. Simplistic theology, a bad understanding of the writing, or of history, etc.

 

[Resha Caner]

... a genuinely satisfactory explanation ...

Well, that's me of course.

That said, your joke rather hits the nail on the head: the Bible has been rewritten, and many times.

Yes, well I try to adhere to the advice of Dr. Paul Maier, which is not to be afraid of what the text actually says. What it says will provide truth enough.

They may be old problems, but they're hardly resolved ones.

I can see why it might appear that way. Some of the issues are not easy to understand and the discussion gets a bit contorted. I always use one of Augustine's answers as my anecdote. At first his answer to free will seemed trite and a bit cheeky to me. But after wrestling with it myself for a considerable time and finding what I thought to be a glorious new answer, I read Augustine a 2nd time and thought, "Hmm. I guess the old chap had it right after all." There's a bit of "when the student is ready, the teacher will appear" in all of this.

After googling it, some of the claimed contradictions seem petty. Simplistic theology, a bad understanding of the writing, or of history, etc.

I'm glad some recognize that.

The contradiction I remember most is Judas' death. It is totally understandable that people cover up the contradictions with clever ways out. I did it myself.

It's interesting that this is the one that came up ... repeatedly. Really? You want to know a dirty little secret. I'm well aware of the weaknesses of my arguments. I'll admit that I often sit here cringing, waiting for one of you guys to poke at it. Oddly enough, though, 9 times out of 10 it goes by unnoticed. For the stuff that does get poked at (like Judas in this case) my honest reaction is ... really?

So no one's a taker on the dialectic comment? Interesting. Let's be honest guys. We all have our struggles. It's not like I just struggle with theology. I've had to wrestle apparent contradictions in all kinds of things - family life, my engineering job, writing history papers, etc.

So, I guess if no fellow Christians are going to be takers, I'll offer up one that still gets me. What is God going to do differently in heaven from the way things were in Eden?

 

[Gadarene]

I can see why it might appear that way. Some of the issues are not easy to understand and the discussion gets a bit contorted. I always use one of Augustine's answers as my anecdote. At first his answer to free will seemed trite and a bit cheeky to me. But after wrestling with it myself for a considerable time and finding what I thought to be a glorious new answer, I read Augustine a 2nd time and thought, "Hmm. I guess the old chap had it right after all." There's a bit of "when the student is ready, the teacher will appear" in all of this.

If you mean the free will theodicy then I'm gonna have to disagree. Every theodicy I've come across has been pretty lame.

So, I guess if no fellow Christians are going to be takers, I'll offer up one that still gets me. What is God going to do differently in heaven from the way things were in Eden?

Speaking of which, the notion of heaven pokes holes both the free will theodicy and the best world theodicy rather nicely.

 

[Crandaddy]

It does indeed seem to me that inconsistencies in the Bible exist and are numerous, and to be quite honest, I'm not entirely sure what to make of all of them. But it also seems to me rather curious that the Biblical canon should be established even with such difficulties. If two books offer what seem to be conflicting accounts of the same event, then why declare both books canonical in the first place?

What is God going to do differently in heaven from the way things were in Eden?

The story of Adam, Eve, Eden, and the Fall is to me one of the very most fascinating stories in the entire Bible. I'm still trying to unravel that Gordian knot, but I will say that Adam and Eve would not have enjoyed the Beatific Vision of God in Eden that the saints will enjoy in heaven. If they'd had the Beatific Vision in Eden, they couldn't have sinned, and therefore couldn't have fallen from grace.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Finally, the questions:
1. As an unbeliever, why do you think Christians remain Christian when the inconsistencies have been known for so long? (Though I'm sure someone will say it, I'll try to poison the well and say I'm not interested in answers like, "Because they're a deluded bunch of lunatics" or "Because they're insecure and need a crutch." Rather, I'll lead into question 2 ...)

Because, people might think that the inconsistencies have been already been successfully addressed. There are plenty of apologists who do pretty much nothing besides "explaining away" inconsistencies, difficulties, and 'apparent contradictions'.

Because, people might think that even if these inconsistencies have not yet been successfully explained there are still solutions to them. The difference between "explained" and "explainable". Just because you don't know how something is explained, doesn't mean it is explainable.

Because, people might also simply not be affected by them. Not everybody is an inerrantist after all, and there surely are those who can live with smaller, or even greater, flaws.


^^^This is of course not exhaustive and there is surely more to it. And there surely is some which is much less flattering that what I have outlined, like power, inertia, laziness etc.

2. As an unbeliever, why do you think no one has ever successfully corrected all those errors and reissued the "Newly Inspired Version" (NIV for those who get the joke) of the Bible?

Are you sure there has never been at least any successfully "corrected" version? There are really odd translations floating about that do seem to aim at blotting out and obscuring difficulties for once. And then there are the Mormons who see themselves as the restored and hence true version of Christianity. Of course Mormonism has less to do with fixing inconsistencies in the Bible, but rather fixing up the whole faith. But I do think it goes into the right direction nevertheless.

There is also the Jefferson (?) Bible, although that one might not make the cut as successful.

3. As an unbeliever, are there any examples promoted as problems that you have decided are not problems?

The closest would be scientific inaccuracies. However there is always the issue of figuring out how the Bible ought to be read, and me I have no horses in this race. I don't care if the Bible ought to be scientifically accurate or whether ancient, yet false conceptions of the world are OK.

Only so much, if people think that a flat earth and a crystalline skydome for example are no death knell for their faith, then that is fine by me. If on the other hand, people think that the Bible ought to be accurate in every detail, including science, and consequently attempt to cram modern science into their Bible interpetation and/or distort science, well, I think that is their problem.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Yeah, that one always annoys me. I mean really? All people accomplish when they tout this one is to demonstrate their lack of knowledge about mathematics, measurement theory, and history.

And if that wasn't bad enough, there are really those who step up to the challenge and attempt to reconcile this difficuly. And I am not thinking about this:

1) What is pi to one significant digit? 3
2) Does the text claim the bowl was a perfect circle? No
3) What was the ability of people in Solomon's time to manufacture a precise bowl and then precisely measure it? Probably not that good.
4) What did other societies of the time know about pi? That it was approximately 3, but not exactly, a little bit bigger. Not much more than that.

 

[Paradoxum]

I'm glad some recognize that.

It's interesting that this is the one that came up ... repeatedly. Really? You want to know a dirty little secret. I'm well aware of the weaknesses of my arguments. I'll admit that I often sit here cringing, waiting for one of you guys to poke at it. Oddly enough, though, 9 times out of 10 it goes by unnoticed. For the stuff that does get poked at (like Judas in this case) my honest reaction is ... really?

I don't care about Judas that much, because I know that such contradictions can be swept under the carpet. It (along with the number angels at the tomb) are always the ones that come to mind.

I assume you have an answer to these two? And what are the type of problems that seem to go by unnoticed?

So no one's a taker on the dialectic comment? Interesting. Let's be honest guys. We all have our struggles. It's not like I just struggle with theology. I've had to wrestle apparent contradictions in all kinds of things - family life, my engineering job, writing history papers, etc.

So, I guess if no fellow Christians are going to be takers, I'll offer up one that still gets me. What is God going to do differently in heaven from the way things were in Eden?

I would say that is a theological problem, rather than a contradiction.

If we are including problems like these, I would include "is heaven inside, or outside of time; or how does time work there". I think both answers have problems.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Well, that's me of course.

Every group would say that

So, I guess if no fellow Christians are going to be takers, I'll offer up one that still gets me. What is God going to do differently in heaven from the way things were in Eden?

Let's hope he decide to plant another tree and label it as 'forbidden'.

 

[Resha Caner]

If two books offer what seem to be conflicting accounts of the same event, then why declare both books canonical in the first place?

That's the whole point of raising the issue of the dialectic. Canonicity is not to be left to human wisdom. There are many examples from 19th century scholarship of, well, bad scholarship - things like the Documentary analysis of Genesis and declarations that the Hittites, Belshazzar, Pilate, etc. never existed. All things that have since been discarded as errant.

That's one of my points here. Not all "errors" are actually errors.

If they'd had the Beatific Vision in Eden, they couldn't have sinned, and therefore couldn't have fallen from grace.

Maybe it will be something like that, but it's just speculation. I haven't found a scriptural reason to choose one idea over another. Whatever the idea, it needs to answer the question: Then why not Eden? So, why didn't God instantiate the Beatific Vision in Eden?

 

[Resha Caner]

There is also the Jefferson (?) Bible, although that one might not make the cut as successful.

Since there isn't a Jeffersonian Christian Church, I wouldn't consider it successful - nor the Mormons. Joseph Smith did rewrite the Bible, but even the Mormons have discarded that effort. Ask them about that sometime. And the Book of Mormon is not a rewrite. It's akin to the Koran.

The Jehovah's Witnesses might be the closest thing to what I'm talking about ... not that I want to promote them as a valid alternative.

Only so much, if people think that a flat earth and a crystalline skydome for example are no death knell for their faith, then that is fine by me.

Flat earth & the skydome also go on my annoyance list. Like no modern person ever talks about "sunrise" without realizing that's not consistent with the Copernican cosmology. In the first place, the sun is no more a valid center than the earth, as several non-believers (such as Russell) have mentioned many times. It might be more parsimonious, but it doesn't have more veracity.

Second, cultural phrasing (idiom) does need to be considered. With that said, the issue of idiom does raise interesting problems. Like anything else, there are valid and invalid uses of that argument.

And if that wasn't bad enough, there are really those who step up to the challenge and attempt to reconcile this difficuly. And I am not thinking about this:

I'm not sure I know what you mean.

 

[Resha Caner]

And what are the type of problems that seem to go by unnoticed?

I'm not going to make it easy for you ... though the theological problem I mentioned is one of them. If someone wanted to take me to task on that, I don't think I'd have a good answer. I guess I need to work on that.

Like I said, sometimes someone finds one. I have been caught off guard from time to time - much more so in my younger days than now. The last one I can remember that caught me off guard was Wiccan's, "How do you know your god isn't an evil god pretending to be a good god?" question. What's interesting is that for most questions, once I have the answer it seems stupidly simple and almost self-evident. It's the tough ones where my answers are still a bit shaky that I'm not going to tell you about ... except for the one I've already mentioned.

I would say that is a theological problem, rather than a contradiction.

You're right. I realized that after I posted it. Alright, another one. The genealogies in Matthew & Luke. There are several explanations for it, but in keeping with what I said to Crandaddy, no reason to choose one over another. I've even thought of one that I don't think anyone has ever mentioned ... not that adding to the mess would help.

I did extensive genealogical research on my own family at one time, and it gets very confusing. There is a tendency to name kids in honor of respected patriarchs and matriarchs of the family. Plus, at one time, intermarriage, "taking in" orphaned relatives as your own, and "banishing" unsavory relatives (literally wiping their names out of the family Bible) was more common. As such, you end up with a mess of relatives all with the same name who are intermarrying and living with a variety of different step-families. It creates a situation where you can actually have multiple genealogies for the same person that are both legitimate ... i.e. not the Mary vs. Joseph argument that is often used, but that Mary might have had 2 legitimate genealogies.

Anyway, it creates some interesting issues beyond genealogy - for YEC and all the other misinformed readings of the Biblical history.

If we are including problems like these, I would include "is heaven inside, or outside of time; or how does time work there". I think both answers have problems.

Yeah, but remember that my answer makes sense and is correct. I don't know why people keep forgetting that.

 

[Resha Caner]

Every group would say that

Yes, but they're wrong and I'm right. I can prove it because, well, I'm right.

You do realize, I expect, that the explanations I receive from unbelievers often seem to me to be just as much an unjustified rationalization as is claimed of Christian explanation. I try to be honest in such discussions - to say, "OK, you've got a good point there," but sometimes it does seem a bit ridiculous to me ... but (cough) maybe this isn't the place to mention such things.

 

[Davian]

1) As a general statement, I would guess that many are not aware of these contradictions. Their understanding of the bible may be built primarily on what has been fed to them from the pulpit. This may have included convincing sermons on "the alleged contradictions in the bible".

I do not see belief as a rational decision - you don't choose to believe - and many are indoctrinated as children.

Humans have the ability to believe all manner of things. If it's not religion, it may be conspiracy theories, crop circles, or extraterrestrials visitors on Earth.

2) You already have a book that can be used by theistic evolutionists, young Earth creationists, and atheist Christians.

Two weeks ago, in this same forum, I made reference to the 'flood'. The response? "I am not a Jew. The Old Testament is one thing, but I base my life on the teachings of Christ."

No need to change it when you can cherry pick.

3) I have never seen the bible as anything other than what could be written by people of that time. There is nothing to reconcile that would make the book of scientific significance.

Taking yourself as an example, if there were contradictions that you could see, something that could not be resolved, would it cause you to abandon your belief?