|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 01/06/2004 : 21:02:36
|
Okay, the gauntlet has once again been thrown down over Biblical contradictions. As a rule, I find contradictions between the Old and New Testaments to be "softballs," in that they're very easy to apologize away. So, to make it more of a challenge, let's try to stick to New Testament contradictions.
For example, in John 5, Jesus says,quote:
31: If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
Yet later, in John 8, he says,quote:
14: Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.
Even within context, this seems contradictory. Four possibilities suggest themselves:- Jesus did not know whence he came or whither he went in John 5,
- Jesus meant different things, since he was speaking to different groups of people,
- Something happened between John 5:31 and John 8:14 which made Jesus change his mind, or
- the passages really do contradict each other.
Now, since ivanisavich claims "the Bible is pretty rock-solid and non-intercontradictory (new word?  ) when it comes to stating it's own opinions," support for any explanation of this example (possible) contradiction (or others that are brought up) should come directly from Bible passages (preferrably from the same book), with no "reading between the lines" or historical assumptions (other than "the Bible is an old book") required. Seems fair to me.
If anything needs clarification or amendment, don't hesitate to speak up. Otherwise, have at!
Edited to spell ivanisavich's name correctly.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
Edited by - Dave W. on 01/06/2004 21:05:40
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2004 : 07:01:41 [Permalink]
|
One of my favorite contradictions, that I have mentioned before involves the linking of Jesus to David. It was important for the writers of the bible to show that Jesus was a direct decendant of David, to reconcile old testament prophesies. The new testament has an absurdly detailed list of the ancestry going from Joseph back to David.
After all of this the new testament then goes to great pains to declare that Joseph and Jesus are not related. So Jesus is not the decendant of David.
This helps to show the evolution of the christian theology. Initally it was important to link Jesus cult to the existing Jewish religion, using old testament prophesy of the messiah. Later it became important to elevate Jesus to actual deity status. One of the methods used to accomplished this was the virgin birth, or actually the coupling of human and God. This was a common motif of the middle east.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
 |
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2004 : 07:15:48 [Permalink]
|
Ludicrous, Dave W. This is truly scratching in the manure pile of 'anti-Christianity' (--whatever 'anti-Christianity' means: There seem to be different interpretations).
In many Gospel (--the four known 'books'; Mat. Mark, Luke, John--) passages the word "witness" is used as in someone who bears witness "Lo! Here is Elijah reborn!"; but the phrase "bear record" means just that -- as in "I bear record that I just came from breakfast."
There is no contradiction whatsoever here, in my opinion: Pure poppycock. |
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2004 : 07:44:24 [Permalink]
|
That's fine, Computer Org. I was unaware of the distinction between witnessing and recording, although contextual clues (especially John 8:13) suggest things are other than as you describe.
I must say it was certainly not my intent to go "scratching in the manure pile," and I didn't bring up that particular example with any malice in mind. Correcting a mistaken impression about the Bible doesn't seem to me to require such a harsh reply, especially not a reply which implies that I dug up this witness-vs-record thing just to virtually spit on Christians here. I'm sure you, and many apologists, have heard that one a zillion times (and thus may read it with contempt), but I learned of it for the first time last night, when I went looking for an example with which to start the thread. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2004 : 08:15:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
That's fine, Computer Org. I was unaware of the distinction between witnessing and recording, although contextual clues (especially John 8:13) suggest things are other than as you describe.
I must say it was certainly not my intent to go "scratching in the manure pile," and I didn't bring up that particular example with any malice in mind. Correcting a mistaken impression about the Bible doesn't seem to me to require such a harsh reply, especially not a reply which implies that I dug up this witness-vs-record thing just to virtually spit on Christians here. I'm sure you, and many apologists, have heard that one a zillion times (and thus may read it with contempt), but I learned of it for the first time last night, when I went looking for an example with which to start the thread.
You're right, I was too harsh.
I once again deny being a "Christian apologist". Not being Jewish, I am completely indifferent as to whether Jesus was the 'Christ' or not. I really don't even know what being the 'Christ' means except that it is something important to Jews. I have never heard this particular seeming-contradiction before but think that the whole subject of Bibical contradictions is nonsensical. |
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2004 : 10:18:13 [Permalink]
|
Thanks for starting the thread Dave, as long as it doesn't get out of hand I'll follow this one too.
quote:
John 5:31
If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
That seems reasonable, since the OT says that there must be 2 or more witnesses to an event for it to be considered true (ie, one person's story is not considered legitimate until it can be backed up by another's---basically your standard court case stuff)
Jesus himself deals with that "rule" in John 8:17 when he says:
quote:
It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.
Therefore, Jesus is admitting that alone, his "witness" cannot be trusted, but since God bares his witness as well, what he says must then be considered true.
quote:
John 8:14
Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.
Here, Jesus is backing up his record not with another physical witness, but by the fact that what he says comes true. Many times throughout the New Testament, Jesus makes "prophesies" about his life and what will happen to him, and since those events do occur, their occurance bears witness to Jesus' truth. This is the only exception to the "rule" stated above (Jesus uses history as his record this time, rather than a person--a fair switch).
Just in case that isn't enough, let's look at the full context of John 8
quote:
John 8:12
Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
Here Jesus is making a prophesy of what will happen in the future to people who follow him.
quote:
John 8:13
The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true.
The pharisees then say that Jesus is making claims which aren't true.
quote:
John 8:14
Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.
Basically, Jesus says, "I may say these things about myself (without a second person as a witness), but they are true, because I know the past and the future--you do not." Not only does Jesus claim that he knows the past and future, but he proves this statement many times by fulfilling his own prophesies throughout his lifetime.
Then, in verses 15-18, Jesus continues to expand on why his "witness" is true---it is because he also has God to back up his story.
Overall, the 2 verses are not contradictory. They are simply Jesus stating that :
1-A person can not be trusted if he/doesn't have a second witness
2-God is Jesus' second witness
3-Even when God doesn't act as second witness, the fact that what Jesus says does come true does excuse the fact that he doesn't have a second witness.
Therefore, between the two points of time when Jesus makes those two statements, he doesn't change or evolve his ideas or claims, he simply explains them to the disbelievers. I do not see any "contradictions"
quote:
Now, since ivanisavich claims "the Bible is pretty rock-solid and non-intercontradictory (new word? ) when it comes to stating it's own opinions," support for any explanation of this example (possible) contradiction (or others that are brought up) should come directly from Bible passages ...
Check.
quote:
...(preferrably from the same book)...
Check.
quote:
...with no "reading between the lines"...
Check.
quote:
...or historical assumptions (other than "the Bible is an old book") required...
Check.
quote:
...Seems fair to me...
Me too .
So, case stated: There are no contradictions between John 5:31 and John 8:14. I am awaiting your reply  .
quote:
The new testament has an absurdly detailed list of the ancestry going from Joseph back to David.
Well, I'm sure that if it wasn't so detailed, all "Biblical critiquers" would be complaining about how vague it is.
quote:
After all of this the new testament then goes to great pains to declare that Joseph and Jesus are not related. So Jesus is not the decendant of David.
Yes he is. David is his earthly father so he is related to him--just not by blood.
quote:
Initally it was important to link Jesus cult to the existing Jewish religion, using old testament prophesy of the messiah. Later it became important to elevate Jesus to actual deity status.
Jesus always had the status of a deity. Even he claimed to be the Son of God.
quote:
Ludicrous, Dave W. This is truly scratching in the manure pile of 'anti-Christianity'
Well, I wouldn't go as far as to say that...because he is simply ask |
| Edited by - ivanisavich on 01/07/2004 10:20:46 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2004 : 23:02:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ivanisavich
Buuuut....it has to be dealt with....so here we are
What can I say...
I'm impressed.
I do not think of the bible in any other context than fiction, with religious content. But within itself, you have shown this particular part to be non-contradictionary.
|
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. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2004 : 08:26:08 [Permalink]
|
The Bible has some sections which contradict others. In particualr the two accounts of Judas Iscariot's death. In one story, he hangs himself. In another he falls off a hill and bursts himself.
Scriptural cites for death of Judas
Matthew 27:1-7 (Judas hangs himself, preists use the 30 pieces of silver returned by Judas to by the potter's field)
Acts 1:16-19 (Judas buys the potter's field using the 30 pieces of silver, falls and bursts himself)
They exist. One also has to take into account the multiple authors of the Bible.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 01/08/2004 08:37:45 |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2004 : 10:07:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ivanisavich
quote:
After all of this the new testament then goes to great pains to declare that Joseph and Jesus are not related. So Jesus is not the decendant of David.
Yes he is. David is his earthly father so he is related to him--just not by blood.
Since you don't have to be related by blood, it seems reasonable that any male who lived prior to jesus could be considered his earthly father, as well. I suggest that the most likely earthly father(s) are the human authors of these books. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2004 : 10:51:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Since you don't have to be related by blood, it seems reasonable that any male who lived prior to jesus could be considered his earthly father, as well. I suggest that the most likely earthly father(s) are the human authors of these books.
Not so. Seeing as how Mary was his earthly mother by blood, and the fact that Joseph and Mary were married, I do not find it difficult to claim that Jesus' earthly father was Joseph.
quote:
Scriptural cites for death of Judas
Well, as opposed to re-writing the answer myself...I'll simply quote www.tektonics.org:
quote:
The standard explanation given by harmonists is that Judas hung himself, and then his body fell and broke open. This has some promise: Judas hanged himself on Passover and before a Sabbath, and no Jew was going to touch the hanging corpse (touching a dead body caused defilement; it would have been work to take it down on the Sabbath; added to that, death by hanging was especially a disgrace; and hoisting a dead body isn't an attractive vocation if it isn't on your property), so it is safe to assume that Judas hung himself and that the branch or rope eventually broke.
There are more explanatoins for the "contradiction", but I feel that the description above is probably most reasonable.
Here is the link: http://www.tektonics.org/judasdeath.html
quote:
One also has to take into account the multiple authors of the Bible.
Which is why it is so statistically amazing that they all fit together so well. |
| Edited by - ivanisavich on 01/08/2004 11:07:34 |
|
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2004 : 11:10:15 [Permalink]
|
On a side note for my above argument for the hanging vs. falling...
If you feel that me saying "falling and bursting could have happened as a result of him hanging himself" is a little far-fetched...consider this: how else could he have "fallen and burst" in a field? |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2004 : 13:31:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ivanisavich
On a side note for my above argument for the hanging vs. falling...
If you feel that me saying "falling and bursting could have happened as a result of him hanging himself" is a little far-fetched...consider this: how else could he have "fallen and burst" in a field?
On sharp rocks. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2004 : 13:40:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ivanisavich
quote:
Since you don't have to be related by blood, it seems reasonable that any male who lived prior to jesus could be considered his earthly father, as well. I suggest that the most likely earthly father(s) are the human authors of these books.
Not so. Seeing as how Mary was his earthly mother by blood, and the fact that Joseph and Mary were married, I do not find it difficult to claim that Jesus' earthly father was Joseph.
I'll accept that Joseph was his earthly adoptive father. In your original post you said that David was his earthly father, so I responded. But as I look at the original post it appears that you have a definition for descendent that I am not familiar with when it comes to ancestry.
|
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2004 : 13:43:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'll accept that Joseph was his earthly adoptive father. In your original post you said that David was his earthly father, so I responded. But as I look at the original post it appears that you have a definition for descendent that I am not familiar with when it comes to ancestry.
Woops! Big mistake on my part...I seem to have written the wrong thing...when I wrote that David was his earthly father, I meant forefather (ancestor), and should have written that Joseph was his earthly father originally instead. Sorry about that moakley...thanks for pointing that out...
...That's probably why what I was saying was not making any sense!
Sorry about that again... |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2004 : 14:02:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ivanisavich
quote:
Since you don't have to be related by blood, it seems reasonable that any male who lived prior to jesus could be considered his earthly father, as well. I suggest that the most likely earthly father(s) are the human authors of these books.
Not so. Seeing as how Mary was his earthly mother by blood, and the fact that Joseph and Mary were married, I do not find it difficult to claim that Jesus' earthly father was Joseph.
quote:
Scriptural cites for death of Judas
Well, as opposed to re-writing the answer myself...I'll simply quote www.tektonics.org:
quote:
The standard explanation given by harmonists is that Judas hung himself, and then his body fell and broke open. This has some promise: Judas hanged himself on Passover and before a Sabbath, and no Jew was going to touch the hanging corpse (touching a dead body caused defilement; it would have been work to take it down on the Sabbath; added to that, death by hanging was especially a disgrace; and hoisting a dead body isn't an attractive vocation if it isn't on your property), so it is safe to assume that Judas hung himself and that the branch or rope eventually broke.
There are more explanatoins for the "contradiction", but I feel that the description above is probably most reasonable.
Here is the link: http://www.tektonics.org/judasdeath.html
quote:
One also has to take into account the multiple authors of the Bible.
Which is why it is so statistically amazing that they all fit together so well.
Nice dodge of the additional problem of who paid for the field. The explaination given to make the contradiction go away is not supported by the Bible nor science. Hanging bodies do not just fall after three days. Nor do they fall headlong. (Acts 1:18)
Since the Bible was heavily edited over the years, it is not statistically amazing that the books fit together well. Nor are the books on the same subject. When the books do overlap, quite a few contradictions are evident.
In a limited analysis of the page you link to, it is evident that the authors repeatedly go through great pains to link the two as non-contradictory including using fringe sources and unlikely translational changes. Bringing in the additional burden of the land ownership, which the site really stretches for and Occam's Razor slices the convoluted explaination to shreds. The article makes great pains to discredit skeptics by using prejudical language calling skeptics' questions "stupid" and any contradictions found in context to be "hoopla".
This page says it all about this source.
http://www.tektonics.org/calcon.html
The author of this site is actually a Young Earth Creationist who has written for Answers In Genesis.
http://www.tektonics.org/mission.html
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2004 : 18:47:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Nice dodge of the additional problem of who paid for the field.
No dodge intended, just overlooked ...I was only concentrating on Judas death when I replied, and it seems that I failed to notice the problem of who bought the field as well.
But, the site I quoted also deals reasonably with that as well. Because the money thrown back at the priests was "blood money", they would not have taken ownership of it and it would have still been Judas' money. So, when they purchased the field, it would have been Judas' field that Judas' bought.
I've actually come across the same situation recently. After my grandfather passed away my mother became in charge of the estate. Yet, even though she was in full control of the money in the estate (and my grandfather, being dead, obviously wasn't), before it was divided out according to his will, any expenses paid for using the money were considered payed for by my grandfather. In other words, my grandfather was "purchasing" and "paying" for things even after he was dead. The issue is simply a matter of legalities. And, although this analogy isn't quite the same as the accounts in Acts and Matthew, the same idea could be applied.
quote:
The explaination given to make the contradiction go away is not supported by the Bible nor science.
Well, seeing as it says he was hanging, and it also says that he fell, I do not see how a connection between first hanging and then falling cannot be established. Science? Please explain how science can disprove that a person cannot fall after hanging. There is a good chance (because Judas was not a professional executor) that either his rope could have broken or the structure he hung himself from (probably a branch on a tree) could have broken under his weight as well.
quote:
Hanging bodies do not just fall after three days.
It didn't have to be three days...it could have been 10 minutes after his death. But from a more realistic point of view, with the amount of stress on the make-shift noose he would have had to make, it probably would have been a day or two before it would have torn under his weight.
quote:
Nor do they fall headlong.
Well, the definition for headlong does not necessarily mean head-first. To quote Webster's New World Dictionary (emphasis added by myself):
headlong 1. with the head first
2. with wild speed or force; reckless or recklessly
So, presuming he hung himself from a rather high place (which he probably did to ensure that he wouldn't first hit the ground which would render his attempt at suicide failed), the fall could have been quite a speedy one. And, assuming he hung from a tree, depending on what he hit on the way down, he could have been torn open and therefore could have "burst" (as one might describe the situation afterward).
I still see no reason to consider this a contradiction. It is simply 2 different explanations and descriptions of the same scene.
All I am saying is that you shouldn't assume that it was a hollywood-style, 1 foot off the ground, clean and easy hanging. He was full of grief and just wanted to end his life, so it was probably very amateurish and sloppy.
quote:
Since the Bible was heavily edited over the years, it is not statistically amazing that the books fit together well.
Yes it is.
quote:
Nor are the books on the same subject. When the books do overlap, quite a few contradictions are evident.
For one, that contradicts your above statement, and for two, that's what we're discussing.
quote:
In a limited analysis of the page you link to...
I could have made my analysis longer, but I figured no one would read it then
quote:
...it is evident that the authors repeatedly go through great pains to link the two as non-contradictory including using fringe sources and unlikely translational changes. Bringing in the additional burden of the land ownership, which the site really stretches for and Occam's Razor slices the convoluted explaination to shreds.
I do not see how. I feel the explanation I gave above is sufficient in describing how the ownership could have come about without reading into the story too deep.
quote:
The article makes great pains to discredit skeptics by using prejudical language calling skeptics' questions "stupid" and any contradictions found in context to be "hoopla".
I too found that some of the "explanations" were a little far-fetched (particularily the one claiming that Matthew 27:1-7 is not actually talking about Judas), as well, I was disappointed with the namecalling. That is why I did not directly quote the other explanations as I found the one I posted quite satisfactory by itself.
quote:
The author of this site is actually a Young Earth Creationist who has written for Answers In Genesis.
That's irrelevant, as well a completely different discussion. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
