Micky,
This response is to your post of Apr 08, 2008, 7:18 pm (I know it may or may not be close to the place given the format we have here.) To provide continuity, I’ll include your comments identifying them and respond.
Let’s establish that a website that is defending a religious posture/position is not an objective website. There are many of those in the Internet.
How do we procure objectivity of analysis? Let’s use neutral examples for illustration before addressing your comments.
{
Consumer Reports (CR), which accepts no advertising from companies making products, tests products. CR tests tends to have
objectivity in their reports. I cite this as an example of
objectivity in evaluation of data. Additionally, a double-blind test on a new medical treatment, a drug, a therapy is done by those
who want to know the facts. If such tests are made by a biased source which already
wants a particular outcome, the results are unreliable
unless skeptical review demonstrates the same result confirming a conclusion. That
skeptical review is critical to objectivity and to reliable conclusion.}
Religious websites which defend some version of
Christianity are
not objective sources for analysis and comparative review of their interpretations or doctrinal positions. Identifying individuals “biblical scholars”
who have a bias in favor of biblical doctrine fails to meet genuine, academic scholarship.
The first thing to recognize is the accuracy of the information from a source. Attacking the source without addressing the content is faulty analysis. Some of the websites I presented contrast specific scripts with other scripts, and they demonstrate
contradiction of content. They quote the Bible and demonstrate it to be internally contradictory. The source can be challenged if its quotations are inaccurate. Sources challenging the accuracy and consistency of biblical scripts
make direct reference to biblical scripts. Only if the source misquotes biblical script can the source be challenged
as a source of the quote.
Others challenge comparative disagreement between different translations as words are changed by the translators for some stated or unstated reason. That is a separate and different kind of challenge for biblical accuracy and reliability. Nevertheless, it too, is a valid challenge to contradictions.
In
New Testament Contradictions there are multiple examples of disagreement on claimed factual accounts.
Space on a bb is most inadequate to discuss in detail the
many contradictions which are cited by genuine biblical scholars. By “genuine biblical scholars,” I mean those with
no sect, cult, or denominational commitment or favor a particular version of
Christianity. I mean (as in Consumer Reports or medical test example) sources which have
no interest in an outcome or which produces a given
belief dogma. “Objectivity”
is critical in the assessment of reliable conclusion.
General attack of source
is no refutation of the content of the source.
Objectivity is also critical in
genuine scholarship. Otherwise, we have partisan bias in favor of some view or another. Absent agreement on the importance of objectivity and neutrality for analytical study, there can be no agreement going forward.
The websites which I provided link to
BibleGateway for the quotations in question and which are contradictory. The website In
New Testament Contradictions compares exact words from the scripts which are in contradiction, disagreement, or are ambiguous in reference.
Challenging the source
in this case is challenging the
Bible which
is the source of the examples of contradiction.
The detailing at this website alone lists contradictions, issues, and questions which demonstrate its title.
Let’s begin with a statement of yours:
Micky states:
The Bible is an ancient document that requires expertise for proper understanding and interpretation.
“Proper understanding and interpretation” are ambiguous terms. Who decides that? We have a thousand
Christian groups. They don’t agree on what the Bible says or what it means. Why is that? It is precisely because of
ambiguous, unclear, contradictory language in biblical scripts. The “proper understanding and interpretation” of the
Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is worlds apart from the
Southern Baptist’s “proper understanding and interpretation.”
Keep in mind that with mass printings of the Bible, massive division of what is “proper understanding and interpretation” even from
Christians themselves has emerged. What we require, then, is objectivity from those who have
no interest and
no emotional commitment to some analysis of biblical scripts.
Objectivity does not come from those
committed to a particular doctrine.
Micky states:
Your so-called skeptics are nothing more than a bunch of uneducated hacks who think they can read an ancient document in plain English as if it were written for them just yesterday.
Ad hominem. It’s no refutation of the analysis presented by sources cited. Attacking the source is counter-productive
unless you can demonstrate the comparative script analysis
misquotes the Bible in this case.
*
Micky states:
That they think that they go through an English translation, take notes on things that don't make sense to them, and insist these represent contradictions, is laughable.
* Generalized attack is no refutation.
Micky states:
The fact is the vast majority of alleged contradictions are not contradictions at all.
No evidence presented to support the claim. Hasty generalizations are not refutation. In fact, they weaken a case one may wish to make.
*
Micky states:
I'm sure some probably exist, and have yet to be resolved, but the number is no where near as catastrophic as your "skeptics" would have us believe.
No evidence presented to support the claim.
*
Micky states:
But more importantly (I think this is what matters ) none of the contradictions that might exist do nothing to reduce the credibility or significance of the New Testament.
Of course
they matter. That’s the issue here,
contradictions in the Bible. And of course they “reduce” the “credibility” as well as the “significance” of the
New Testament.
Here is why that is the case, Micky. As the
previous websites demonstrate and are available here,
each contradiction diminishes the credibility of the scripts which demonstrate such contradiction. Of great impact on the religion,
Christianity, are the many hundreds of groups which exist presently as a result of
contradictions interpreted differently by these various hundreds of groups which
use the
New Testament as basis for their doctrines and beliefs.
Contradiction of statements in a collection of writings which are purported to be the basis for conclusions
absolute, clearly undermine those conclusions. And as documentation of that, we have all these various groups of
Christians with their various pundits
claiming different things. If there were unity of statement and unity of interpretation,
Christianity would be a united religion. We have every evidence that
Christianity is
highly fractured.
So it “matters” that
Christianity is quite unable to present consistent positions as it relies on
inconsistent scripts which can be
interpreted in a wide variety of contradictory ways.
Micky states:
They do nothing to cause doubt in the historicity of Jesus.
Of course they “cause doubt in the historicity of Jesus.” The phrase “historicity of Jesus” is open to interpretation. Those interpretations range from conclusion that no such person existed to conclusion that some charismatic person, with emotional appeal, may have resembled the
Jesus contradictorily described in the New Testament. But we know that the emperors who took to
Christianity did all within their power to have their copiers present as consistent
story, a mythology as was possible. They did not succeed as subsequent copies and translations from language to language reveal as
genuine scholars (as I previously defined)
compare the various available
copies made decades after the facts which they purport to report.
So whether one argues the first conclusion or a version of the second,
inconsistencies exist in the scripts. Just comparing the various wording found in the multiple offerings of translations found at
BibleGateway demonstrates
contradiction of word and contradiction of interpretation for both testaments of the Bible. Under Google, BibleGateway bills itself as
A searchable online Bible in over 50 versions.
Since there is
absence of agreement even in the various translations available today, and since those various translations are
each open to their own interpretations, the “historicity of Jesus” is called into sharp question.
Those questions vary from reasonable challenge as to whether any such person ever existed to a challenge of accuracy from
word-of-mouth stories which no one thought significant enough to record upon
first hearing. So the stories are
hearsay and written well after the alleged claim. This is most critical to the reliability of
the New Testament.
Both of these options
“cause doubt in the historicity of Jesus.” Keep in mind that the Eastern Orthodox churches were widely separated from the church of Rome, and that during the first 300 years, Christianity had a struggle for survival in the Roman Empire. A major turning point in
Christianity came in 313 when Roman Emperor Constantine the Great granted Christians freedom to practice their religion. There were
seven ecumenical councils held between 325 and 787. The councils
wrote the church organization and doctrines. 1054 A.D. is generally considered the date of the
schism (split) between the Eastern and Western churches of
Christianity. The Eastern Orthodox churches are the major churches in Greece, Russia, Eastern Europe, and Western Asia.
Because they were so separated in distance, they developed
different doctrines. The two churches had drifted apart for hundreds of years before the schism of 1054 A.D. Many political, cultural, and geographical factors contributed to the schism. If you like, you can look up
Eastern Orthodox Church and learn many more particulars on the division which took place circa 1054.
The next great schism was of course the Protestant Reformation begun in 1517 with the protest of Martin Luther. I take time to mention these generally known points because the “historicity of Jesus” and the
historicity of Christianity underwent the first fractures even before Constantine the Great. The schisms continue to the present day and there remains
wide disagreement on the particulars regarding “historicity of Jesus.”
For those intimately involved with a particular religious group today in a time-frame of a few decades, it’s most difficult to appreciate the
long history of divisions (splits) which are a part of the religion
Christianity. And there is intellectual skepticism about the religion based on available evidence. The biblical contradictions, well documented, contribute to that skepticism and to the multiple groups which regard themselves as
Christian.
Freedom from Religion is a website which offers the reader side by side comparison of biblical scripts which offer brief but compelling examples of biblical contradictions. While it considers the entire Bible, it demonstrates well in easy-to-read format the reality of contradictions.
Contradictions of Paul gives some example of
New Testament contradiction. These contradictions are clearly critical to certain
Christian doctrine.
Here is a sample from this above link:
"Paul’s letters reveal perhaps more about himself than the actual Jesus of history. The Pauline Epistles were written before the traditional gospels. The four Bible gospels articulate an earthly messiah; a Jesus Christ messiah, born into this world. Paul is almost silent regarding an earthly Jesus, and for good reason; the earthly Jesus history had probably not yet been written (or created). Paul never mentions the virgin birth, even though it would have strengthened his arguments in several places. Instead, where Paul does refer to the birth, he says that Jesus “was born of the seed of David” (Rom 1:3) and was “born of a woman,” not a virgin (Gal 4:4). Had he been privy, much of that Jesus information would have been very useful to the doctrinal points Paul was making in the Epistles. Paul almost never mentions the teachings of Jesus. The earthly The Apostle Paul is a big player in the history of Christianity. He is credited with writing close to 60% of the New Testament; though many of those manuscripts have no verified authorship.
"Paul (or whoever the authors were) rarely places a physical Jesus in his teaching. His references to Christ seem to be on a spiritual ministry and resurrection. Obviously, Paul never claims that he knew a physical Jesus. What isn’t so obvious is
the earliest (biblical) gospel (Mark) makes no mention of the virgin birth. Paul’s Epistles (and Romans) were written about 10 years or more before Mark.
Paul never mentions the virgin birth either. This coincides with many other Christian teachers during that same time period. They believed in a spiritual (never physical) Christ savior who conquered evil in the spiritual realm by way of a spiritual crucifixion and resurrection. This is very interesting when you go back and read the words ascribed to Paul.
The earthly Christ, as seen in the later-written gospels, places Jesus as the Christ on earth.
"Editing and multiple authorships can be seen in the fusion of teachings and doctrines. Put simply,
many early Christians never believed that a physical Christ existed (they had nothing to do with a Jesus). Later Christians claimed that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ. One can easily see how a physical Jesus could be added to the later doctrines seen in the gospels. We tend to look upon the early church as neat little groups within a short time period with just a few problems in conflicting doctrine. This is simply not history. There were many years involved with many differences in belief about whom Christ was and who Jesus was. The group that “won” the battle of doctrine was the council of Nicea under Constantine’s rule.
They were the chief editors of the Bible canon and therefore took the liberty of deciding that the person Jesus was the Christ. There were many believers who simply rejected an earthly physical Jesus as the Christ; they simply believed in a spiritual Christ. The many books and writings were fused together and traces of different doctrines are seen throughout the New Testament and apocryphal writings. In short, the Council of Nicaea was an early form of fundamentalism. They insisted on a “legal” book to rule the physical church. The other groups of Christians observed that real faith was spiritually internal; written documents were not authoritative to them. There were many kinds of Christians then and many now. (Thanks to Gary Lenaire)"
I have placed in bold type some key elements demonstrating contradiction on the “historicity of Jesus.”
Micky states:
They (contradictions) do nothing to cause doubt in the historicity of Jesus.
Of course they do. Contradictions in any story cause “doubt” in the credibility of the story. It’s a problem for Christianity today and it contributes to the many
versions of that religion which flourish today.
Micky states:
Of the several examples that have been named here, none have been able to stand the test of scrutiny because plausible and reasonable explanations have been offered for each case. Instead of listening and learning, you refuse to accept anything a Christian has to say on the matter. The New Testament is a religious text, so to reject any explanation by those who are religious, is to illustrate an epitome of ignorance.
Christians do not agree with one another. So, to take the perspective of one
Christian view over that of another and different
Christian view, is to choose between conflicting views.
The New Testament is a composite of
many writers. It is not a singular “religious text.” That conclusion is incorrect. There is ample documentation that the
New Testament is made up of
a variety of authors. As I stated earlier, many writers were subject to “editing,” and multiple authorships can be seen in the fusion of teachings and doctrines.” I identified the website for this earlier.
Ad hominem is irrelevant.
Micky states:
Now you say critics do not disregard the New Testament. This is false.
Please re-read my easy-access websites
JHERE.
Critics take the
New Testament in various translations and detail analysis of
all the books there. The websites which I provided alone demonstrate that
critics address the New Testament. And in addressing it, they identify the contradictions, the ambiguity, and the various doctrinal interpretations placed on it. In addition to the very limited websites provided, there are many historical research documents which scrutinize the New Testament, its language, its omissions, and its inclusions.
Do take the time to read in detail just the websites I listed. Perhaps you intend something by the use of “disregard” which I do not. Could that be the case? Those who look at the New Testament, who read it, who point out its contradictions, are
not disregarding it, they are addressing it.
Micky states:
You only focus on it inasmuch as you look for things you think can be used as a justification to disregard it. That is the only time you guys read the text, and you do so with little or no understanding that is required. You do not understand Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic. You have no professional training in the science of hermeneutics, which has been a shcolarly discipline for centuries. This is why you and your ilk do not deserve to be given the benefit of the doubt. At least the laymen rely on Bible commentaries written by true scholars who can read the original texts and given their perspectives. Your source of authority is anything that shows up on infidels.org, written by Farell Till, a college drop out who is a career atheist. This is your source for education and objectivity? Are you trying to make us laugh?
Ad hominem (personal attack) is never refutation nor is it analysis of issues at hand.
*
Micky states:
I suggest you exercise a little "objectivity" of your own by listening to what those Christians actually have to say.
Objectivity is always critical. However
Christians of any denomination, sect, or cult lack objectivity. As I observed previously in the first part of my response to you,
objectivity requires disinterested observation. It also requires that the observer has
no preference in the outcome of the investigation. Since we know that
Christians disagree, no singular
Christian view is reliable as
objective.
Micky states:
If you had paid attention before you would not have made such a ridiculous error by trying to use the Immaculate Conception as something to do with the birth of Jesus.
Ad hominem (personal attack) is never refutation nor is it analysis of issues at hand.
*
It is the doctrine of numerous
Christian organizations that the Immaculate Conception is critical to the claims made that
Jesus was the
Christ.
Immaculate Conception is a
major doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. Please see the website which I have linked.
Of course the Roman Catholic (RC) website is hardly an objective one for reliable/valid conclusion as a matter of
fact. But, it is reliable as a matter of
RC doctrine. Numerous other
Christian organizations also subscribe to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
It was a
story invented in the early days of
Christianity to “market” the new religion to the masses who could not read or write. Indeed in
Christian doctrine, and
Immaculate Conception claim are
essential to the claim that
Jesus was the “messiah” and was “the Christ.”
Please read the RC website above to understand how this doctrine is critical to claims of
Christianity prior to the Protestant Reformation.
Micky states:
This is like a 12 year old with a telescope trying to talk down to astrologists by telling them the sun rotates around the moon. You exhibit no knowledge whatsoever, only a giddiness to provide meaningless and offensive links to hateful websites. And you do not appear interested in addressing the problems with your attacks. You simply reply with the same links while responses and refutations have already been given you.
Ad hominem (personal attack) is never refutation nor is it analysis of issues at hand.
*
Micky states:
Now I see you have completely derailed this thread and tried to attack several straw man according to what some unknown religious websites have claimed about the Bible. Nobody here is trying to defend the extreme and minority viewpoint of biblical inerrancy.
Ad hominem (personal attack) is never refutation nor is it analysis of issues at hand.
*
There are many
Christians who do defend “biblical inerrancy.” They have a very difficult time, but they try. The contradictions are so numerous that the defense becomes an insurmountable challenge against those who can quote contradictory scripts from the Bible and confront them with the contradictions.
Micky states:
Why not address your enormous and inexcusable goof regarding the immaculate conception?
I can provide multiple additional links to
Christian groups which rely heavily on the doctrine of Immaculate Conception as does the Roman Catholic Church. It’s a central doctrine used to justify multiple claims made for the alleged
Jesus as that character which is central to
Christianity.
Micky states:
The issue is about the five so-called contradictions provided by GoodK. So far none have passed any "objective" test to be considered a contradiction. That you would call your list of Muslim and UFO related weblinks "objective" is really just an invitation to be rejected as someone who was never intending to be taken seriously.
There are many more than “5” contradictions in the New Testament as my various websites provided easy access to see. My references to religions other than
Christianity were intended to demonstrate that Christianity is but
one of several world religions today. Perhaps if you could have provided a specific link in our discussions here to “Muslim and UFO…” I could better respond.
Our discussions have focused on
contradictions in the New Testament. However, biblical contradictions have been established for the entire Bible as some of my links have demonstrated. I provided easy-access to links since our common denominator here is
the Internet. I should like to also suggest a number of
books which are authored by scholars who maintain neutrality and objectivity. I could list them and link you to a source such as Amazon.
Micky states:
And no, there is nothing "friendly" about anything in your militant atheistic rantings that openly declare all religious perspectives worthless and biased while accepting the true grime of the web to be objective (evilbible.com and infidels.org)
Ad hominem (personal attack) is never refutation nor is it analysis of issues at hand.
*
I have regarded our discussions as “friendly.” In addition, I have provided quick access to websites which have extended analysis, organization, and documentation for issues regarding contradictions found in the New Testament and in the Bible at large.
Finally, I have quoted your words in brown and responded directly to them point by point. I also acknowledged at the beginning that individuals who have been indoctrinated in religious mythology are unlikely to be open to information or analysis which demonstrates serious problems in that mythology.
JAK