|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 01/14/2004 : 08:20:59 [Permalink]
|
ivanisavich wrote:quote:
Well, you originally started this thread because I "dropped the gauntlet" on biblical contradictions--which is true. I posted in the other thread saying that the Bible is very non-contradictory when it comes to stating its beliefs--I never said that I believed it was word-for-word non-contradictory in that thread (that was an assumption).
Frankly, I figured there was a 50-50 shot you were going to reply to the OP with something like, "oh, I didn't mean that kind of contradiction."quote:
I'll be posting more in response to what you've all said shortly, but I've got to run at the moment!
Take your time, of course. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2004 : 08:22:51 [Permalink]
|
Okay, just a quick reply...
quote:
And I'll continue here from points previous. It appears, ivanisavich, that the crux of one of the two matters of Judas' death revolves around whether or not the syntactic structure in Acts portrays one event followed by another (my plain-reading view), or if it can signify that two events happened, but not relate their chronology. I will grant that Acts could be read as "Judas died, and then the field was purchased" if and only if you can provide other instances in which the same structure was used - specifically from the KJV: "event A; event B" in the same verse - to indicate clearly that event B happened prior to event A. (I must say, this might make the KJV unique in its use of a semicolon to mean "but before that happened.")
The New Internation Version also includes the semicolon as well (that is the version I was originally quoting).
Because nowhere else in the Bible (that I am aware of), something is purchased in someone else's name, you probably won't find another example of...well....something being purchased in someone else's name!
After doing a little more research I also came across this interesting point of view by Andrew Vargo:
quote:
Matthew was the closest to the events and he says that the priests refused to put the money in the temple treasury because it was blood money. When the Priests purchased the field for the temple, they would never buy it in the name of the temple, so they bought it in the name of Judas Iscariot. The Roman property records, which may have been examined by Luke, would officially record that Judas bought the field because it was purchased in his name.
An interesting examination of the events I must say....and another reasonable explanation for why Luke recorded that Judas purchased the field.
Remember, I am not saying there is a correct answer, I am just saying that there is plenty of reasonable doubt to be cast upon the "contradiction".
Gotta go.
Btw...one at a time please! It's hard to discuss several discrepencies thoroughly all at once! |
|
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2004 : 08:26:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Frankly, I figured there was a 50-50 shot you were going to reply to the OP with something like, "oh, I didn't mean that kind of contradiction."
First of all, I'm not backing down on my stance. Second, please don't make assumptions and then give me the old "oh sure" when I defend myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2004 : 12:10:25 [Permalink]
|
ivanisavich wrote:quote:
First of all, I'm not backing down on my stance. Second, please don't make assumptions and then give me the old "oh sure" when I defend myself.
Whoa. Hang on. I neither accused you of backing down, nor did I give you an "oh, sure." Back when I started this thread, I figured there was an even chance you'd deal with the syntactic "contradiction" offered in that post, or conversely, you might have chosen to add a further limit of your own, and only deal with doctrinal matters. I had no preference as to which kind of contradiction you chose to deal with, and even if you decided to quit discussing what's been discussed so far, in favor of more "weighty" matters (like whether or not faith is enough to be saved, for one example), it's no skin off my nose, and I wouldn't consider it to be "backing down" on your part.
I certainly don't want to "force" you to defend something you wouldn't defend voluntarily, especially since you've got no obligation to post anything to these forums (or this thread) at all. And in the first post in this thread, I laid out some limits, and then asked for clarifications (from you or anyone else) about what we should be discussing here, in an attempt to make sure that we were seeing eye-to-eye about what this thread should be about.
It even occured to me, while writing that first post, that the entire first page of this thread might (possible, not probable) wind up being nothing but a discussion of what a contradiction is, just so all participants were crystal-clear. Or at least a discussion about what "level" of contradiction - that is, how significant a contradiction appears to be - you would need to be shown which might prompt you to reconsider your evaluation of the Bible as "rock solid."
The only sort of "backing down" which would torque me a bit is this: say we'd been talking about the manner of Judas' death for five pages, and you suddenly posted, "well, that's all fine and dandy, but it doesn't matter since Judas' death is inconsequential to the message of the Bible," followed by some laughing smileys. Say, on the other hand, we'd been talking about Judas for five pages, with no "meeting of minds" in sight, and you posted, "well, this is getting us nowhere. It's unproductive and frustrating. Can we move onto something else?" I wouldn't consider that sort of thing to be bad form at all.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've seen what appears to be frustration popping up already (not just from you), and am concerned that if you feel "trapped" into a frustrating discussion about a subject which you feel isn't very important, you're going to be less likely to post here at all. And so, if you'd feel more comfortable or more productive or more whatever discussing a different sort of contradiction, closer to your clarified intentions within the thrown gauntlet quote, I'm all for it. And you shouldn't consider the suggestion of such a slight change of subject to be an admission of defeat or a "backing down" in any way.
In the meantime, back to your prior post:quote:
The New Internation Version also includes the semicolon as well (that is the version I was originally quoting).
A comparison of many version of Acts 1:18 is interesting, to say the least. The semicolon appears to be a minority interpretation. And the Wycliffe New Testament actually has Judas hanging and bursting.quote:
Because nowhere else in the Bible (that I am aware of), something is purchased in someone else's name, you probably won't find another example of...well....something being purchased in someone else's name!
After doing a little more research I also came across this interesting point of view by Andrew Vargo:
. . .
An interesting examination of the events I must say....and another reasonable explanation for why Luke recorded that Judas purchased the field.
I think you missed my point. I'm not talking about who purchased the field, but instead when the field was purchased. The way I read it, Matthew says "Judas died, then a field was bought," while Acts says, "a field was bought, then Judas died." For this,quote:
With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.
to mean the field was purchased after his death (as in Matthew), the semicolon would need to be replaced like this:quote:
With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field[. But before that happened,] there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.
That's quite a mouthful for a poor little semicolon, and that is what I was asking for another example of: a semicolon which indicates that events occured in the opposite chronology from the way they are written. If that is a common construction in either the NIV or the KJV, I'll retract my assertion that the order of events are completely backwards between Matthew and Acts.quote:
Remember, I am not saying there is a correct answer, I am just saying that there is plenty of reasonable doubt to be cast upon the "contradiction".
And I would suggest that for the words of the Bible to be "rock solid," they should be held to a higher standard than simply "reasonable doubt." Many reasonable people have different opinions on what is or is not reasonable. Personally, "rock solid" means to me "so evident that only the insane would doubt it."quote:
Btw...one at a time please! It's hard to discuss several discrepencies thoroughly all at once!
Sorry. I thought the Judas bit was getting tired and coming to a close. I figured I'd toss out another one just to get people thinking about it, if nothing more. Again, I apologize. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2004 : 13:03:58 [Permalink]
|
Hello,
A quick word: the text bases (or at least all those that I am aware of) were written without any punctuation whatsoever. The languages do have some ways of letting the reader know whether a particular passage is a question or a declaration or whatever, but I don't know them.
Dave, it appears to me that there is at least one contradiction in our current Bible versions, so that particular question is answered for me. I suppose that whether or not proven contradictions in the text rule out the Bible's veracity is another debate. I'll agree the Bible we have is not rock-solid. But then again, since faith is an integral part of religion, I wouldn't expect the originals to be rock solid, although I have faith that they don't contradict each other.
Later,
Hippy. |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2004 : 13:56:32 [Permalink]
|
Hippy, so far as I am aware, the intent of pointing out Biblical contradictions is only rarely to discount the Bible's overall veracity. In fact, were someone to say, "the Bible contains contradictions, thus it is all wrong," I'd feel compelled to correct that person's misapprehension that flaws in one section of text mean that we can consider other sections to be flawed without inspection.
The possible intent of any contradictions discussion is going to depend on the context from which it came. The intent of this thread, for example, is pretty much solely to show ivanisavich at least one contradiction which he apparently missed. There are, it seems, hundreds of possible contradictions we can go through, both textual and doctrinal. We've only begun to scratch the surface.
(Probably the most "popular" reason for starting a discussion like this is to answer those people who say things like, "I know the Bible is the true Word of God because the Bible doesn't contain any errors." What better way to demonstrate an error than by showing that the Bible disagrees with itself on at least a few matters? Note that this is simply to answer your implied question more fully, Hippy, and not to imply that anyone has made such a statement here on the SFN lately.)
You also wrote:quote:
A quick word: the text bases (or at least all those that I am aware of) were written without any punctuation whatsoever.
I'm aware of that. The point is that the translators of at least the NIV and KJV have chosen to put a semicolon in the middle of Acts 1:18, and for it to agree chronologically with Matthew, that semicolon necessarily means "but before that happened," a very odd use, indeed. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2004 : 20:11:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Whoa. Hang on. I neither accused you of backing down, nor did I give you an "oh, sure." Back when I started this thread, I figured there was an even chance you'd deal with the syntactic "contradiction" offered in that post, or conversely, you might have chosen to add a further limit of your own, and only deal with doctrinal matters. I had no preference as to which kind of contradiction you chose to deal with, and even if you decided to quit discussing what's been discussed so far, in favor of more "weighty" matters (like whether or not faith is enough to be saved, for one example), it's no skin off my nose, and I wouldn't consider it to be "backing down" on your part.
Well, I guess I mis-understood your statement then (sometimes it's hard to tell the intent when you're reading as opposed to hearing  )
quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've seen what appears to be frustration popping up already (not just from you), and am concerned that if you feel "trapped" into a frustrating discussion about a subject which you feel isn't very important, you're going to be less likely to post here at all.
Well...I can identify with that feeling definitely...but I don't want to leave and appear to be another hit-and-run poster.
quote:
I think you missed my point. I'm not talking about who purchased the field, but instead when the field was purchased. The way I read it, Matthew says "Judas died, then a field was bought," while Acts says, "a field was bought, then Judas died." For this,
But there is no "then" in the verse...making an explicit description of a possible chronological order of events non-existent.
The verse "Judas bought a field; there he died" would need to read "Judas bought a field; he then died there" for there to be an absolute contradiction.
quote:
And I would suggest that for the words of the Bible to be "rock solid," they should be held to a higher standard than simply "reasonable doubt." Many reasonable people have different opinions on what is or is not reasonable. Personally, "rock solid" means to me "so evident that only the insane would doubt it."
Well, as I've said, it's a group of verses so vague that it is hard to draw any conclusions from them. Discovering what really happened is just a way of feeding our need for complete knowledge of the event--it does not affect what the Bible means or intends. We cannot know every detail of any events recorded in the Bible, so there will always be room for speculation--and there is nothing wrong with that.
quote:
Sorry. I thought the Judas bit was getting tired and coming to a close. I figured I'd toss out another one just to get people thinking about it, if nothing more. Again, I apologize.
Hey, don't worry about it! I was just waiting for a definite conclusion before opening a new can, that way we're not leaving loose strings hanging around.
No apology needed!
quote:
A quick word: the text bases (or at least all those that I am aware of) were written without any punctuation whatsoever. The languages do have some ways of letting the reader know whether a particular passage is a question or a declaration or whatever, but I don't know them.
Exactly. There were no semicolons in any of the ancient transcripts...so we are not actually arguing with the original texts...just our closest translations and interpretations of them. Still, we shouldn't dismiss arguments on syntax just because that's part of our translation as it is still close to the original.
quote:
The intent of this thread, for example, is pretty much solely to show ivanisavich at least one contradiction which he apparently missed. There are, it seems, hundreds of possible contradictions we can go through, both textual and doctrinal. We've only begun to scratch the surface.
I agree. But, it is not my intent to declare "there are no contradictions at all"...rather it is my intent to declare "I need sufficient evidence that cannot be refuted before I can accept that there are contradictions in the Bible"
A quick search will show hundreds of contradictions "found", but another will quickly find you hundreds of refutations for those same contradictions. So, it is a sticky surface to be standing on, for both sides.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2004 : 08:18:00 [Permalink]
|
ivanisavich wrote:quote:
Well, I guess I mis-understood your statement then (sometimes it's hard to tell the intent when you're reading as opposed to hearing )
That is probably all that happened. Not a big deal, of course.quote:
Well...I can identify with that feeling definitely...but I don't want to leave and appear to be another hit-and-run poster.
Understood.quote:
But there is no "then" in the verse...making an explicit description of a possible chronological order of events non-existent.
The verse "Judas bought a field; there he died" would need to read "Judas bought a field; he then died there" for there to be an absolute contradiction.
And neither does Matthew say "then." He just says, "Judas died. The priests bought a field." With a "plain English" read of the text (or any text, for that matter), I believe the most reasonable assumption is, unless specified elsewhere, that if event B is written about after event A, then B happened after A.
Now, I probably misspoke earlier in the thread. After all, we are required to make some assumptions when reading. We assume, for example, that the pronoun "he" in Acts 1:18 refers to Judas, whereas the author and/or translators may have meant that some male other than Judas fell and burst in Judas' new field. Actually, to be utterly technical, we have to assume we know what the words fell, field, priest, died, bought, etc., really mean, and that the meaning you give these words is the same as the meaning I give them. Otherwise, of course, we're talking past each other, and will never agree (on much of anything, much less Judas).
So, where do we draw the line about which assumptions are "safe," and which are not? I submit to you that interpretations which are out of the ordinary require evidence that, for the Bible, they are normal. In other words, if "Event A. Event B" as often as not turns out to mean that event B happened first, I'll agree with you that the chronologies of both Matthew and Acts are in question.
Of course, if you can find such evidence, that will also mean that Genesis 8:9 might mean that Noah took the dove back into the ark before the dove returned to him, which is patently absurd. After all, there is no "then" in that verse which makes the order of events explicit, like there is in Genesis 8:11.quote:
Well, as I've said, it's a group of verses so vague that it is hard to draw any conclusions from them. Discovering what really happened is just a way of feeding our need for complete knowledge of the event--it does not affect what the Bible means or intends. We cannot know every detail of any events recorded in the Bible, so there will always be room for speculation--and there is nothing wrong with that.
Perhaps not, but there is something disingenuous about, for example, claiming that the Bible absolutely contains no contradictions, but then using speculation to defend that statement of fact. Not that you have done so explicitly, but others have.quote:
Hey, don't worry about it! I was just waiting for a definite conclusion before opening a new can, that way we're not leaving loose strings hanging around.
No apology needed!
Well, so long as speculation is "allowed" as a defense, there will always be loose strings. When to put a disputed contradiction to bed, then, becomes a judgement call, instead of something that we will be able to agree upon as self-evident very often (the witness/record thing which started this thread is probably a notable exception).quote:
I agree. But, it is not my intent to declare "there are no contradictions at all"...rather it is my intent to declare "I need sufficient evidence that cannot be refuted before I can accept that there are contradictions in the Bible"
Okay. Before anyone can do that, you'll need to state your criteria for refutation. I suggest, however, that if you mean "no other scenario can be imagined" - that speculative 'solutions' to contradictions are okay - then your standards may be a tad high. Just like you can imagine a scenario in which Judas hangs, falls, and bursts, and both the priests and Judas buy the field (thus "refuting" the idea that the two accounts contradict), I can imagine a universe in which there is no God, and on that basis, claim that I've "refuted" the entire Bible. I doubt you would find that acceptable. It's important, therefore, for you to state a set of criteria which you would find acceptable when applied to your own arguments, in order to be fair.quote:
A quick search will show hundreds of contradictions "found", but another will quickly find you hundreds of refutations for those same contradictions. So, it is a sticky surface to be standing on, for both sides.
I agree to an extent, but I also believe your use of "refutations" above is somewhat generous. A few things that often get tossed into lists of contradictions, for example, are the fact that the Bible says that grasshoppers have four legs, that bats are birds, and that rabbits chew their cud. (These are "contradictions" only in the sense that they contradict what we know as facts.) The defense of these errors is often that the people who wrote the Bible weren't as smart or as observant as we are now, so they are simple mistakes. But the people who make such defenses also claim that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Such a work shouldn't have such silly errors in it, regardless of who wrote it. Such "refutations," therefore, fall pretty flat with non-believers.
And yes, I am aware that both this and the Genesis references earlier in this post are outside the New Testament, which I made a limit in the OP, but I bring them up only to illustrate other points, and not as contradictions to be resolved here. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2004 : 07:35:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I believe the most reasonable assumption is, unless specified elsewhere, that if event B is written about after event A, then B happened after A.
Well, in Matthew it does say then:
quote:
So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. (NIV)
2 definite chronological points in time have been created in Matthew, whereas in Acts they have not.
quote:
Now, I probably misspoke earlier in the thread. After all, we are required to make some assumptions when reading. We assume, for example, that the pronoun "he" in Acts 1:18 refers to Judas, whereas the author and/or translators may have meant that some male other than Judas fell and burst in Judas' new field.
That's actually a point that's come up, but I find the argument out of context considering that the whole point of Peter's speech is to find someone to replace Judas (ie, why would he suddenly introduce a new character?)
quote:
Actually, to be utterly technical, we have to assume we know what the words fell, field, priest, died, bought, etc., really mean, and that the meaning you give these words is the same as the meaning I give them.
Well, not to go over the top or anything, but some of those words do come into question if you want to completely analyze the situation. For example, some translations say he aquired the field, some say he bought (and although small, the one-word change certainly makes a difference).
quote:
In other words, if "Event A. Event B" as often as not turns out to mean that event B happened first, I'll agree with you that the chronologies of both Matthew and Acts are in question.
Well, some areas of the Bible do have that mixed-up chronology (ie, one is in Genesis, when God first says animals came before man, and later says man comes before animals).
quote:
Well, so long as speculation is "allowed" as a defense, there will always be loose strings.
yes, but we can still come to conclusions (ie, verse A and verse B are not necessarily contradictory)
We will never know whether they are for sure or not, but we will be able to make conclusions about the probability of them being so or not.
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2004 : 15:45:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ivanisavich
We will never know whether they are for sure or not, but we will be able to make conclusions about the probability of them being so or not.
To me the conclusion is pretty obvious. It's improbable that he burst (without any help like cutting the gut as in the movie "Red Dragon") after he hanged himself. And it's even more improbable that he managed to hang himself after he burst on the field. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2004 : 20:18:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
To me the conclusion is pretty obvious. It's improbable that he burst (without any help like cutting the gut as in the movie "Red Dragon") after he hanged himself. And it's even more improbable that he managed to hang himself after he burst on the field.
Ok? Well how do you propose he did burst. At least with a post-hanging burst you have an explanation for how he fell, as well as a reason for why he was in a position to fall in the first place(rope/branch broke, someone cut him down etc). Whereas, without him already hanging (ie, in a situation where he had nowhere to fall from), there isn't really a plausible explanation for how he would have "burst".
Did he accidentally trip in a field full of sharp rocks? Highly unlikely, as the field was used as a burial ground after his death, and therefore probably wasn't a playground of sharp rocks (A rocky terrain would hinder any digging, and therefore wouldn't be much use as a graveyard). And even if there were areas of sharp rocks, why was he moving at such speed through them that he was able to fall hard enough to tear himself open? Highly unlikely.
Did he jump down a cliff? Highly unlikely that there would be any cliffs in his field.
Did he jump off a tree? Now that's something I'd like to see myself  . Suicide by tree-jumping. What was he thinking?! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2004 : 00:35:02 [Permalink]
|
ivanisavich wrote:quote:
Well, in Matthew it does say then:quote:
So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. (NIV)
2 definite chronological points in time have been created in Matthew, whereas in Acts they have not.
No. Matthew establishes a chronology between Judas throwing money into a temple, and his death. It does not establish a chronology between his death, and when the priests bought the field with the money.
There is no "then" between Matthew 27:5 and Matthew 27:6-8 which would establish an order for the events of Judas' death, and the purchase of a field. Whether or not Judas threw the coins at the priests before or after his death (the "then" you point out) was not in question.quote:
Well, some areas of the Bible do have that mixed-up chronology (ie, one is in Genesis, when God first says animals came before man, and later says man comes before animals).
No, I'm talking about two sequential sentences, or (in the case of Acts' description of Judas' death) two sequential phrases. I'm not asking about two completely different chapters of the Bible.quote:
yes, but we can still come to conclusions (ie, verse A and verse B are not necessarily contradictory)
Actually, this is what my long discourse was about: should we be talking about things which are necessarily contradictory, or things which are reasonably contradictory. I asked you to define what you would consider a contradiction. You have failed to address that point, but it is necessary that you do so before constructive discussion on this matter can take place. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2004 : 10:06:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
No. Matthew establishes a chronology between Judas throwing money into a temple, and his death. It does not establish a chronology between his death, and when the priests bought the field with the money.
There is no "then" between Matthew 27:5 and Matthew 27:6-8 which would establish an order for the events of Judas' death, and the purchase of a field. Whether or not Judas threw the coins at the priests before or after his death (the "then" you point out) was not in question.
Sorry, I misunderstood you. And in your explanation it is obvious you are correct--there is no "then" that connects the two.
But, it is unreasonable assume that Judas threw the coins after he was dead, so there is still a chronological order of events.
quote:
No, I'm talking about two sequential sentences, or (in the case of Acts' description of Judas' death) two sequential phrases. I'm not asking about two completely different chapters of the Bible.
And that is why I provided the animal before man creation story as an example.
Genesis 2:19...
quote:
So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name
Here, we have an order of events that seems to contradict earlier creation stories that say God created animals before man. But, we must first consider whether or not the verse is logical. Because God created everything in 6 days and then rested, and since in the verse Adam has been around long enough to name the animals, the verse is either saying that:
1. God told adam to name the animals during the 6 days (which is not the case)
2. God created the animals after the creation week (which is not the case)
or
3. The verse is simply retelling the story in an order which seems to be chronological, when it isn't. If the verse read "So, out of the ground..." then chronological order would be established, but I believe the comma has been left out purposely (by translators of course), to establish the fact that, yes, the animals came from the ground, but no, the verse is not retelling the story in any order (because no order is necessary if that is not the intent). (if that makes any sense )
Therefore, it's obvious that Genesis 2:19 is very relevant when it comes to providing another example from the Bible of a passage where the events seem to be in contradicting chronogical order, when they aren't.
quote:
Actually, this is what my long discourse was about: should we be talking about things which are necessarily contradictory, or things which are reasonably contradictory.
Both.
quote:
I asked you to define what you would consider a contradiction.
I'll try to be more explicit then. I believe that the only differences in verses that can be considered absolutely contradictory, are ones that are clearly unapologizable (new word? ), yet clearly conflicting. Judas death is one that appears to be contradictory, but one that can still be explained.
quote:
You have failed to address that point, but it is necessary that you do so before constructive discussion on this matter can take place.
Well, hopefully the above statement helps then. For example, if one account of Judas death said that he recieved 20 coins, and one said he recieved 30, then I would have to declare that a contradiction. But, if a "contradiction" can be refuted with a logical argument, then we cannot declare it a contradiction positively for reasons of doubt. |
|
|
|
Jarrid
Skeptic Friend
101 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2004 : 16:07:06 [Permalink]
|
| refer to my statement in "common misconceptions in the bible" on the last page dealing with the Holy Spirit and its job to teach and interpret the Scriptures. |
I don't have to go swimming through an outhouse to know I wouldn't like it." |
|
|
|
Jarrid
Skeptic Friend
101 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2004 : 16:09:28 [Permalink]
|
| (sorry, too lazy to type it all out);) |
I don't have to go swimming through an outhouse to know I wouldn't like it." |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
