Subject:
|
Re: New Stories from the New Testament
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 14 Feb 2002 19:55:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
860 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Markus Wolf writes:
> I look forward to hearing those major contraditions you were talking about.
Well, there are two major types of contradiction to consider: those between
two or more passages of the bible (such as the number of kinds of animals on
the ark--2 or 7 of each?); and those between the bible and reality (such as
the fact that no global flood ever took place, and certainly not on the
scale described in the bible).
The standard rebuttal for these contradictions usually takes one of the
following forms:
1) Eventual revelation: "In time, we'll understand the real meaning."
2) Misinterpretation: "See, it's not a contradiction
if you read it the right way."
3) Empirical error: "All your mountains of data that prove the Noachian
flood never happened are just plain wrong."
4) It's just a metaphor: "If you knew what it's really talking about,
you'd see that there's no contradiction."
5) Translation problem: "Read the original text, and you'll understand
Invariably, these explanations involve either:
A) Shoehorning of facts, such as the ridiculous attempts
to reconcile the (one of the two contradictory)
Genesis myths with the actual, observable universe)
B) Special pleading, which requires other theories to be
100% correct, complete, and consistent, while at the
same time excusing the myths of the bible for their
own incorrectness, incompleteness, and inconsistencies
(since the bible is claimed to be a special case)
C) Deus ex Machina, the cop-out that says "God can do
whatever he wants, and we can't hope to understand
his mysteries. Obviously that answer is useless as
an explanation, since it answers everything and explains nothing
Further problems with the text are in the portrayal of the character of
Jesus (such as in The Fig Tree Enigma) and in the amazing spin-doctoring of
OT prophecies to make them seem like they had anything at all to do with
Jesus. These are inconsistencies, in that they portray as fact things that
are demonstrably not fact. Other inconsistencies can be argued where it is
obvious that textual choices were made to reflect an agenda of
propaganda--these are inconsistent because they are false witness and
therefore against the message of the bible itself.
Anyway, here are a few (of the many, many) links to discussions about the
inconsistencies in the bible:
http://www.cygnus-study.com/pagecon.shtml
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/bible.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html
http://www.uib.no/zoo/brage/bible/1innerr.html
http://www.averysite.com/opinions/religion/bible2.html
http://www.angelfire.com/on2/strike/
http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/index.html
http://justdrew.net/Biblical/
Some of these sites are a trifle hostile, and some make errors of reason,
but the contradictions are there regardless of the demeanor of those who
point them out. (By the way, a search on altavista for "contradictions in
the bible" returns 1561 hits.)
The important part is that the inconsistencies in the bible don't really
matter all that much, unless for some reason you're a literalist. My
disbelief in the Christian God concept has nothing to do with the number of
animals Noah is alleged to have taken aboard the ark, just as my disbelief
in Santa Claus has nothing to do with the problem of fitting all those
presents on a single sleigh.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: New Stories from the New Testament
|
| (...) "Global", in the Ancient World, was a far more restrictive concept; I'm sure you'll agree that any experience lived by an entire region would probably have been considered "global" for many years, until news from distant lands became (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: New Stories from the New Testament
|
| (...) Dude, you really need to go back and check out the references. I mean, he skips and chooses. Even on the quick "Jesus and the Poor" he leaves out Jesus' explanation of why the woman poured oil on Him. In other words, he eliminated "the basic (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
47 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
