Howling Wolf has an extremely helpful post worth a bookmarking, a stumbleupon-ing, a Digg-ing, a Facebooking, etc.  Always helpful to have resources with all the specifics.

Your Thoughts?

There’s a great discussion going on in the comments section relating to Biblical contradictions; in light of that, I thought I’d clarify the point regarding those contradictions — at least to me.

Let me be clear: there are a lot of bad atheist arguments out there regarding Biblical contradictions. When I see even folks like Sam Harris trot out the ridiculous argument that the Bible is false because is says pi is equal to three, I cringe. As atheists, we don’t want to be making these sorts of easily-refuted arguments.

To me, the point of Biblical contradictions isn’t that the Bible says that the mustard seed is the smallest seed and therefore it’s all hokum; the point is that, taken together, the Bible looks like the work of ordinary people telling stories that try to explain the mysteries of the universe given the limitations of the knowledge they had at the time. It doesn’t look like anyone with a pipeline to the almighty, all-knowing Creator of the Universe. That’s all.

Thus, the point of Biblical contradictions isn’t to poke the Christian in the eye about Jesus’s genealogies, or stars literally falling to the earth and fighting in battles, or any of that stuff. It’s to blow a gentle breeze against what seems to me to be chain of inferences that’s balanced like a house of cards.

As far as I can tell, biblical reliability arguments generally rest on a chain of inferences that go something like this:

(1) The New Testament documents should be treated like other historical documents; otherwise, you’ve got a bias against Christianity.

(2) With other historical works, when the author(s) have established a baseline of credibility, we generally accept what the historian has written as true unless there is a good reason to reject it.

(3) The New Testament documents demonstrate a baseline of credibility with respect to historical facts that we can match up against other historical sources; e.g., that Herod was King in Judea. Thus, we should accept the New Testament accounts as generally historically true.

(4) We should not a priori exclude the miraculous accounts in the New Testament absent conflicting evidence; to do otherwise is to have an anti-supernatural bias.

(5) There is no historical evidence contradicting the miraculous accounts in the Bible; therefore, we should believe that those miracles really occurred, including the Resurrection.

(6) If you believe the Resurrection, then Jesus must be God.

(7) If Jesus is God, then the Bible is true.

Now I would argue that each and every one of these inferences is false. The variance in the accounts between the Gospels goes to the propriety of inference #3, and helps establish that the Gospels don’t really read like history, or (to use the overwrought metaphor of apologists) as differing eyewitness accounts to a car accident. They read like narratives.

Lorena

I truly believe that if we treat each other like some people treat God, we would live better together.

Jam

There was a really really cool dood that said this, some would say he’s the messiah and fulfilled old testament prophesy….

Lorena

First, do you have a verse? If you come up with one, maybe I should try walking on water, it may work.

Second, in regards to biblical prophesy, I wrote my opinion about it, here, a long time ago.

Third, as for Jesus being cool, he also talked of sending people to hell and of other disgraces. Most of the things Jesus reportedly said and did where not nice at all.

What Christians need to understand is that the dichotomy of a God who won’t forgive people for not worshiping him does not jive with “cool dudes.” Absolutely, 100% not.

That’s why when people say that Jesus was either God or crazy, I go for crazy, namely schizophrenic. For he had to hear all kids of contradictory voices to do what is written he did and to say what he reportedly said.

Also, lots of really cool dudes with a more wholesome image and who are historically real said the same stuff Jesus said, many years before he did. According to the gospels, Jesus was nasty and had lousy manners ( he was even racist). The earth-shattering statements that are attributed to Jesus, again, where said many years before him by folks who are richly documented in the pages of history, unlike Jesus, who only has a dubious citation by Josephus.

Jam & DagoodS had another discussion. This time it was on the “Overrated Christian Love” post.

The gist of it is that Jam contends the Bible can’t always be taken literally and that “common sense” indicates what’s to be read literally or not.

DagoodS demands a system for establishing and measuring such common sense, and Jam keeps harping on the idea that all systems have exceptions. Spelling and English pronunciation seem to be his favourite sources of examples.

Personally, I find it hard to believe that ANY Christian can claim common sense.

Common sense should tell them that the Flood story is baloney. Or that love and hell are irreconcilable concepts. Or that if God, if He existed, wanted to forgive us all, He shouldn’t need to murder His own son.

The other issue I have with “common sense” is that we all think we have it. If we had a show of hands I would be the first one to raise mine.

The Catholic thinks it is perfectly logical to pray to saints and to Mary, besides God and Jesus.

The Baptist thinks the Bible clearly says prayer should happen in silence and in private. Mathew 6:6–7.

The Pentecostal thinks it is perfectly reasonable to scream and yell in church, in the light of Joel 2:28 and other verses.

The Sabbath keeping Christian thinks that obeying the 4th commandment by keeping the Lord’s day is beyond common sense.

Cult leaders who make women dress in long skirts and go around with their heads covered think it is a no-brainer to interpret Paul’s regulations beyond 1st-century cultural standards, 1 Corinthians 11:4–7.

Everybody is using common sense. Everybody is claiming to be right. Everybody thinks the others are loonies.

Isn’t it sheer arrogance to believe that others are wrong and that our “common sense” is the one-and-only right one?

That’s right. The same folks that claim to follow the Bible forget to be humble, Ephesians 4:2, and go around arrogantly preaching that other Christians and other churches have misunderstood Christianity, but they go to the right church, have read the right books, and follow the REAL Christ.

If common sense is so good and important, anyway, why do we need the Bible? Doesn’t common sense tell you that killing another human being is wrong, or that forcing children to have sex is diabolic, or that stealing violates law & order?

Truly, after 2000 years of Christianity and of applying this-or-that person’s common sense, nobody is following the Bible anymore. The only parts they follow are those that promise hell for non-God worshipers. No wonder they come across as disagreeable, doom-saying rule-keepers.

Anybody wants to volunteer more examples of Christian “common sense?”

One gospel has Jesus saying “Blessed are the poor.”  (Luke)  Another gospel has Jesus saying “Blessed are the poor in spirit.”  (Matthew)  Of course, it’s possible that Jesus said two different things on two different occasions.   Just observe that there’s a big difference between being poor in spirit and being poor, although being poor can make you poor in spirit.  Come to think of it, being poor in spirit can make you poor too.

Then you’ve got the Lord’s Prayer in Luke.  Forgive us our debts, as in moolah, money.  I owe you some money.  Forget it.  No need to pay me back.  Your debt is forgiven.

Matthew has Jesus saying forgive us our transgressions.  You spoke wrongly of me.  You stole from me.  You—well, you know what you did.

Forgive debts or forgive transgressions—-world of difference.  And there’s a world of difference between so many other biblical texts.

When fundamentalists/conservatives get upset at my comments about the diversity within the Bible, the debates within the Bible, I say “Don’t blame me we have four gospels.  (Actually, we have more than four but only four got accepted.)  Don’t blame me we have the book of Job or Ecclesiastes.  Don’t blame me somebody decided the ending of Mark was not good.  Don’t blame me some people didn’t think the gospel of Mark was good enough and wrote some more gospels.  Don’t blame me the Bible has multiple, conflicting confusing positions on divorce.  Don’t blame me scribes changed manuscripts and we can’t be 100% sure of what text is the best text.  Don’t blame me the church ultimately decided against harmonizations like the Diatessaron.  Don’t blame me biblical authors had biases, prejudices.  IT”S NOT MY FAULT! DON’T BLAME ME!

I will, however, blame you if you are not honest about our dilemma.

What is clear is that “the church’s manuscripts” are living texts, not static documents.  Christians in their time, in their situation, confronted with their particular set of circumstances, felt the need to rewrite, reinterpret, and argue with texts in the Hebrew scriptures and in the New Testament.   Part of what they did we refer to as intertextuality, for example, how the Old Testament is used in the New Testament.  Sometimes that use can be rather, how shall we say it?, creative. 

Speaking of the issues of having biases and having living texts, Sonia Sotomayor is being considered to be a US Supreme Court Justice.  In the discussions of her nomination comments are being made about how justice is supposed to be “blind”.  (Funny how “white judge justice” hasn’t been blind.) 

Blind justice is a worthy objective, but………………..but objectivity, pure objectivity is a myth. 

And our laws, the constitution, are living texts, just like our Bible.  If they weren’t, we would not need legislators, judges, and attorneys.  If they weren’t living texts, we wouldn’t have all our arguments and debates and discussions.  It would be simple, black and white, right there in the text, clear as day.   In sum, all judges are activist judges.

Don’t blame me our texts are living texts.  And don’t blame me Jesus didn’t leave any text behind.  Of course, I’m sure Jesus would have made sure the text’s authenticity would never be in doubt and that his words would be clear for all ages and easily interpreted into other languages, and would address every single situation that would ever come up in the history of the world.

Can we be honest about our texts?

Critical scholars of the nineteenth century focused upon supposed ‘contradictions’ and ‘errors’ of fact to be found in the Bible.  During the fist half of the twentieth century, archaeological discoveries supported the presentation of fact found in many places of the Bible that previously had been challenged.  At the end of World War II, scholars held the Bible to be much more trustworthy than they had believed at the beginning of the century.

- Kirk Lowery, Apologetics Study Bible, “Writing History”, copyright 2007, page xxxi

There are many contradictions in the Bible, these are just a few that I spotted (This is also part of my series – The Bible says or the Holy Goof-ups) :

God says Don’t kill, but then changes his mind and says “KIll”

Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

Exodus 32:27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.

Well, do we depend on God’s grace or our efforts to get to heaven?

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith . . . not of works.

James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Just like property sins are inherited. And again they are not!

Exodus 20:5 For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.

Ezekiel 18:20 The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father…

God tempts people to sin? No, he does not?

James 1:13 Let no man say . . . I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.

Genesis 22:1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham

Ok! Now is God for or against the Iraq war? Well, George W.Bush feels God is the father of other war-mongers like him, thanks to these verses.

Romans 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

Exodus 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

John 14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you.

Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

God plays hide and seek. Now you see him! Now you don’t!

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time.

Exodus 33:20 Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

John 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God [Jesus], he hath seen the Father.

1 John 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time.

Genesis 32:30 For I have seen God face to face.

Exodus 33:11 And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.

Isaiah 6:1 In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.

Job 42:5 I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.