cicerone imposter wrote:Contradictions
The Bible is riddled with repetitions and contradictions, things that the Bible bangers would be quick to point out in anything that they want to criticize. For instance, Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors. The flood story is really two interwoven stories that contradict each other on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark--is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones? The Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem--a couple of days or a whole year?) and all four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ's last moments and resurrection. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the genealogy of Jesus Christ' father; though both agree that Joseph was not his real father. Repetitions and contradictions are understandable for a hodgepodge collection of documents, but not for some carefully constructed treatise, reflecting a well-thought-out plan.
Of the various methods I've seen to "explain" these:
1. "That is to be taken metaphorically" In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD--which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want...
2. "There was more there than...." This is used when one verse says "there was a" and another says "there was b", so they decide there was "a" AND "b"--which is said nowhere. This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "a+b". But it doesn't say there was "a+b+litle green martians". This is often the same crowd that insists theirs is the ONLY possible interpretation (i.e. only "a") and the only way. I find it entertaining they they don't mind adding to verses.
3. "It has to be understood in context" I find this amusing because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set is suppose to be taken as THE TRUTH when if you add more to it it suddenly becomes "out of context". How many of you have goten JUST John 3:16 (taken out of all context) thrown up at you?
4. "there was just a copying/writing error" This is sometimes called a "transcription error", as in where one number was meant and an incorrect one was copied down. Or that what was "quoted" wasn't really what was said, but just what the author thought was said when he thought it was said. And that's right--I'm not disagreeing with events, I'm disagreeing with what is WRITTEN. Which is apparently agreed that it is incorrect. This is an amusing misdirection to the problem that the bible itself is wrong.
5. "That is a miracle". Naturally. That is why it is stated as fact.
6. "God works in mysterious ways" A useful dodge when the speaker doesn't understand the conflict between what the bible SAYS and what they WISH it said.
C.I.,
Since it has become obvious, by your continued refusal to reply to or acknowledge things that refute what you have been saying, that you prefer to cut and paste other people's words, I will do so in kind to respond to this latest nonsense.
A Reply to (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/extra/bible-contradictions.html)
James Patrick Holding
The following replies are to alleged Biblical contradictions cited by Jim Meritt (needless to say, not a Bible scholar, but an oceanographer) on the web page, "A List of Biblical Contradictions" at
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/extra/bible-contradictions.html. I've covered most of his entries on this page; now as I develop this page as an encyclopedia, we are turning this into a matter of brief comments on individual points made uniquely by Meritt, followed by links to solutions to contradictions.
Meritt begins with explanations of various methods I've seen to "explain" alleged contradictions and errors. These require a reply first.
1. "That is to be taken metaphorically" In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD - which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want...
Meritt is correct to chastise those who manipulate the Bible to support doctrines of their own invention. However, this does not mean that the Bible - which is, after all, a composition of literature - cannot make use of literary techniques such as metaphor. This objection is merely confetti in the air in place of critical evaluation, and merely begs the question of whether something is or is not being taken as "the absolute Word of God" (note that saying that something is metaphorical is not necessarily somehow saying it is not absolute; that's another issue!) without reference to genre considerations. This complaint lacks in specifics and cannot be taken seriously.
One particular type of verse skeptics like to tear at is that which uses the word "all" or some form of it. Any Joe on the street would recognize a statement like, "Everybody in the world likes ice cream," or, "I'm putting all I have into it" as an idiomatic statement indicating strong feeling or considerable (but not exclusive) weight. But no, the Bible is not allowed to do that. If the Bible says "All the kings of the world came to Solomon for his wisdom," then that means that the Bible says that even King Nxetchthan from the Yucatan paddled over for a look-see. Even a child - or maybe only a child - would understand that such a phrase simply means that Solomon was famous for his wisdom and that a considerable number of rulers (not all) admired his wisdom and came to him to partake of it. More so does this apply in matters of ANE literature, in a period when oral performance was a key to effective communication. (See reply to Skeptic X, "Jeremiah 7:22 and Skeptical Chauvinism" and foundational essays on proverbial literature.)
2. "There was more there than...." This is used when one verse says "there was a" and another says "there was b", so they decide there was "a" AND "b" -which is said nowhere. This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "a+b". But it doesn't say there was "a+b+litle green martians". This is often the same crowd that insists theirs is the ONLY possible interpretation (i.e. only "a") and the only way. I find it entertaining they they don't mind adding to verses.
This apparently refers to the process of "filling in" details to resolve alleged contradictions, in other words, harmonization. However, this is not the same thing as saying that a particular part of the Bible has only one interpretation. Nor is it an illegitimate practice (see here for details).
Briefly, we may consider that many crimes and civil matters would be unresolvable if we were not permitted to look at seemingly contradictory facts and statements and try to reach the truth by means of an "a and b" formula. To use a simplified example: A crime is known to have been committed at 10:30; one witness says he saw the suspect at the scene at 10:25; another says, no, the witness was with me, about three miles away, at 10:25. Investigation suggests that the latter witness' time estimate was based on a clock that was ten minutes slow at the time, and the suspect is nailed. But skeptics, following the principle delineated by Meritt, would have us just throw up our hands in despair and let the suspect go from the start - although if they were the victim in the case, they would probably appreciate the necessity of reconciliation!
Dan Barker, on his Web page, makes a similarly erroneous statement:
Many of the defensive attempts are arguments from silence. Some apologists assert that since the writer of John does not say that there were not more women who visited the tomb with Mary, then it is wrong to accuse him of contradicting the other evangelists who say it was a group of women. But this is a non-argument. With this kind of thinking, I could claim that the people who accompanied Mary to the tomb included Mother Teresa, Elvis Presley, and Paul Bunyan. Since the writer of John does not specifically exclude these people, then there is no way to prove that this is not true--if such fragile logic is valid.
We may agree, obviously, that it is not wise to get overly creative when resolving seemingly contradictory accounts. When invoking speculative factors - which indeed, ultimately and by nature, are arguments from silence - we should choose only reasonable speculations that fit in with the characters, setting, the known facts of the situation, and human nature. Thus adding in "litle (sic) green martians" or "Mother Teresa" etc. would indeed be ludicrous. But adding in people who might have been there would not be unreasonable. (And besides, if Hugh Schonfield can design a Passover Plot, and other skeptics can propose a "swoon theory" saying that Luke was around at the Crucifixion to put pain-killing drugs in the sponge, why can't Christians speculate also and be given the same regard when offering far more reasonable scenarios that depend upon the complexes of oral tradition and literary authorial freedom -- known factors in the ancient world?)
3. "It has to be understood in context" I find this amusing because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set is suppose to be taken as THE TRUTH when if you add more to it it suddenly becomes "out of context". How many of you have goten JUST John 3:16 (taken out of all context) thrown up at you?
Meritt's sources of amusement aside, context is an important issue when considering any quoted phrase, whether in the Bible or elsewhere. Meritt would probably agree with the statement, and say out loud, "I believe fundamentalists are wrong when they say the Bible is inerrant." If I were to quote Meritt thereafter as saying, "I believe...the Bible is inerrant," he would undoubtedly fill my mail server with spiders. (He might anyway, though...) A reader also added this point:
I find it amusing that that Meritt (and free-thinkers in generally) has not understood what context actually is. Yes, John 3:16, might have been used out of context, but Meritt fails to give an example of such action. With his logic all scientists quote each other "out of context", just because they don't quote whole chapters! Context is not about length of quote, it is about the way it is used, and where it used.
Our friend is right -- so how's about it, Mr. Merritt? Ever plan on crawling out of your hole and answering a few of these charges?
4. "there was just a copying/writing error" This is sometimes called a "transcription error", as in where one number was meant and an incorrect one was copied down. Or that what was "quoted" wasn't really what was said, but just what the author thought was said when he thought it was said. And that's right - I'm not disagreeing with events, I'm disagreeing with what is WRITTEN. Which is apparently agreed that it is incorrect. This is an amusing misdirection to the problem that the bible itself is wrong.
How this is "misdirection" is quite unclear - as is a good part of this somewhat choppy explanation; I would give it a "C" for composition and clarity. But assuming that Meritt means what he has said here: It is not "the bible" that is wrong in a translation or transcription error; it is the translator or transcriptor that is wrong. We may wonder if Meritt is familiar with the various issues involving translation of Biblical languages. (See this author's brief essay on Inerrancy and Human Ignorance, and our essay on copyist errors, for details.) Following his (apparent) logic means that if someone wants to translate Meritt's phrase, "I'm not disagreeing with events, I'm disagreeing with what is WRITTEN" into German, and it comes out reading, "I like sticking weinerschnitzel in my ear and I like riding goats bareback," then it is Meritt's fault, not the translator's fault, and it would merely be an "amusing misdirection" on Meritt's part to say that his words were translated improperly.
We will use this sort of answer frequently, since Meritt uses the King James Bible in his quotes. The KJV has its good points, but it was put together before some of the linguistic, archaeological and cultural information we have today, so it should be expected to contain miscues.
5. "That is a miracle". Naturally. That is why it is stated as fact.
Since no context is offered for this odd comment, it is rather difficult to reply. However, it is unquestionable that the Bible depicts events that can be described as miraculous. Any place where God is said to have a part COULD have a "miraculous" element (whatever that is defined to mean).
6. "God works in mysterious ways" A useful dodge when the speaker doesn't understand the conflict between what the bible SAYS and what they WISH it said.
And undoubtedly a last resort, which we will not, and do not, subscribe to. I rank it at about the same level as skeptics who use Herbert Cutner.
Source
