You know what I believe. Feel free to post what you believe.
The Naked Emperor Forum
You know what I believe. Feel free to post what you believe. |
||
| Search For Similar Forums · Return to Website | ||
 First |
 Prev |
 Reply |
 Home |
Next  |
Last  |
| Viewing Page 1 of 1 (Total Posts: 21) |
| Author | Comment |
Jimbojsr
Dec 30, 05 - 11:31 AM |
So, hypothetically speaking...
My turn to ask a question  I was having another look at the "Biblical Contradictions" page. I'm not sure how well you can reasonably answer this (seeing as, until I put smoething forward, it's a hypothetical question), but have a shot anyway: Are you prepared, under any circumstances, to remove one of the 'contradictions' from the page? In other words, if I provided a clear, reasonable, evidence-based explanation for why one of the 'contradictions' was in fact perfectly coherent, would you delete it from the page? Not talking about ALL of them, just one - I admit I have one particular example in mind which can be explained with some sociological data, but we'll stick with the principles first. I just thought it was wise to ask first, just to check that you were open to both sides of the story... |
|
Wayne
Dec 30th, 2005 - 4:16 PM |
Re: So, hypothetically speaking...
Suppose you wanted to buy a building and the seller assures you the roof doesn’t leak. As you tour the building you come upon a puddle. The seller tells you it could have blown in from a nearby window, but assures you the roof doesn’t leak. You continue and find another puddle. “That seeps up through the concrete floor,” you are told. Another puddle is explained as the product of a leaky water fountain. Yet another is explained as a spill. You feel a drop of water fall on your head and look up. The seller quickly points out that it could have been condensation from the air-conditioning ducts. You walk on and still more water falls on you and you point out to the seller that there are no ducts overhead now and water is running down the rafters. He tells you that his kids have super soaker water canons and that they could have been playing with them and sprayed the ceiling. He then tells you with a straight face that it couldn’t have come through the roof because it is impervious to leaks. As you look across the room, the floor is covered in water and the seller is telling you the roof doesn’t leak. How can you buy that? You can argue some sociological explanation that proposes that early biblical readers would not have seen something as contradictory, but you can't change the fact that the text as written is contradictory. As with the above illustration, it's not that a reasonable explanation is impossible for every problem presented. It's just that one simple explanation covers them all without straining credulity. The floor is covered with water because the roof leaks. |
|
Jimbojsr
Jan 4th, 2006 - 9:17 AM |
Re: Re: So, hypothetically speaking...
Hey ho, apologies for late reply, been away for the New Year... "How can you buy that?" Good point, and I'm largely inclined to agree with you. On the other hand, I'd be cautious about extrapolating the same conclusion to an ancient document... I'd suggest we'd be getting nearer the truth if a) the seller had no motivation to lie, and b) there was circumstancial evidence to support the seller's claim - such as your wife noticing two water-drenched kids climbing down the stairs with empty super soakers in their hands ;) Assuming the accuracy of a text is simply the pragmatic way to evaluate the text objectively, as performed by historians to any secular work. This approach permits such probing questions as "If the text were true, shouldn't we expect X", and serves as the foundation for the normal practice of harmonisation. "you can't change the fact that the text as written is contradictory" And I'm sure a Hebrew would see your use of "sunrise" and "sunset" as stupid and contradictory, given your knowledge of astrophysics... Actually, the bit of data I had in mind showed that there was absolutely no contradition, rather than providing an obscure, 'leaky concrete floor'-style getout clause. It's to do with the "3 days and 3 nights" issue of the Gospels, and I might stick a new thread up to start a new discussion, if that's ok. |
|
Jimbojsr
Jan 9th, 2006 - 1:46 PM |
so... 3 days and 3 nights?
Wayne - apologies for the late post... I've actually redone this thing a few times, as I was unsure whether to just specifically address your own page or do a more general item. I went for the latter, seeing as a) the examples I could find online were all a bit fragmented, and b) one has to go through the whole thing to pinpoint exactly where you've slipped up. Anyway, the file can be found at http://www.freewebs.com/thinkhub/threedays.htm |
|
bud
Dec 30th, 2005 - 5:17 PM |
Re: So, hypothetically speaking...
ahhhh jim. that is not only hypothical but kind of ambiguous, if i understand the word correctly. don't know how to answer that except i will address and respond to it as honestly as i can. not only to the context but also to my honest assesment of your actual meaning. which my friend is more than i can say for you as regards my last post. but do please bring it on. you have got my couriosity up. |
|
Wayne
Jan 9th, 2006 - 3:22 PM |
Re: So, hypothetically speaking...
That's it? I'm a little disappointed that you used Turkel's worn out, canned answer that "the bible doesn't mean what it says". At least you didn't claim to have already answered it "above and below". |
Wayne Adkins
 Jan 9th, 2006 - 3:32 PM |
Re: So, hypothetically speaking...
Jimbo, If the Bible doesn't mean what it says when it contradicts itself, does it mean what it says when it speaks of ****ation and salvation? |
|
Jimbojsr
Jan 10th, 2006 - 2:05 PM |
3 days, cont.
"This isn't Turkel's site where he is afraid to confront dissent head on and doesn't link to the articles he attacks." Actually, I was writing as a matter of courtousy, rather than because I thought you would have any great problem with it. As for the Tekton site, it’s not like his not linking to opponents articles makes it impossible to read them – after all, I found you in about 5 seconds, and if people out there are too thick to use Google, that’s hardly his problem. "But your argument has to be convincing because if I can rebut it and show that you didn't do your homework, that will stay here too." Fair enough, and (if I may say so) a good deal more reasonable than some atheists I’ve spoken to online. Then again… "That's it? I'm a little disappointed that you used Turkel's worn out, canned answer that 'the bible doesn't mean what it says'." I'm disappointed that you still can't see past your own fundamentalistic literalism. Your objection to the "Jewish Idiom" solution was to say that a portion of "a day and a night" did not count as a whole "day and a night" - and I've shown conclusive evidence that it most certainly did! (though if you think you understand Jewish idiom better than a first century Rabbi, please let me know  ) Y'know, if the Wayne Adkins of 4000AD one day uncovered a hard copy of these forums and came across your phrase “a bone of contention”, I pity you when you try and convince him that you weren’t actually talking about matrices of mineralised fibrous tissue that provide physical support for an organism’s body... "If the Bible doesn't mean what it says when it contradicts itself, does it mean what it says when it speaks of ****ation and salvation?" Well, if you are confused by any aspects of the Bible’s teaching on heaven, hell or salvation, I suggest you do what I (and all the actual scholars) just did – look at the linguistic and sociological context to try and establish exactly what message the author was trying to convey. Oddly enough, complex topics start to make a lot more sense whenever I do that... |
|
Wayne Adkins
Jan 10th, 2006 - 4:33 PM |
Re: So, hypothetically speaking...
"Yep, still a bone of contention with me. Now as a medical student you aren't going to pin me down by saying there's no such thing as a literal "bone" of contention are you? I understood your point from our previous discussions that the common usage for sunrise doesn't imply a literal rising of the sun from a cosmological perspective. So in all fairness to you I will let it slide if you can show me where "leave nothing alive" and "utterly destroy them" are terms that mean relocate in common usage." Here is the post I made reference to a bone of contention in. I also contrasted that well known phrase with your assertion that the language "leave nothing alive" and "utterly destroy them" means relocate and challenged you to show examples of common usage where this is so. You sidestepped that challenge. As for Jewish idioms, I would concede that this is a "possible" explanation. But since you are so fond of context, I would point out that just like the example of the floor covered with water, the problem is not that reasonable explanations can't be found for one or two of these contradictions, the problem is when taken as a whole the more likely explanation is that they are simply errors in a fallable book. For someone who seems to criticize fundamentalism so much, you go to unreasonable lengths to deny that any one error exists. So here is my question to you. Is there anything in the Bible that you would concede is a contradiction or are you just as much a fundamentalist as you accuse me of being? |
|
Jimbojsr
Jan 12th, 2006 - 1:06 PM |
Re: Re: So, hypothetically speaking...
“I also contrasted that well known phrase with your assertion that the language "leave nothing alive" and "utterly destroy them" means relocate and challenged you to show examples of common usage where this is so.” On reflection, it’s not QUITE an appropriate comparison, in as much as our current example is a specific example of a well used idiom; the instructions in Deuteronomy aren’t a figure of speech, but are to be understood in the context of all the other instructions given to the Israelites. (i.e. it’s closer to “relocate the few members of this murderous, barbaric society that haven’t already relocated, and only kill the 5% or so that try to kill you, and who will continue to be murderous and barbaric towards you and all other nations if you DON’T kill them”). Apologies if I didn’t make that clear. “the problem is not that reasonable explanations can't be found for one or two of these contradictions, the problem is when taken as a whole the more likely explanation is that they are simply errors in a fallable book. For someone who seems to criticize fundamentalism so much, you go to unreasonable lengths to deny that any one error exists.” If I had presented an obscure, tenuous possible get-out clause, you might have a point – but with this example, I have provided you with more or less concrete proof that the expression “3 days and 3 nights” was FREQUENTLY used as meaning “on the third day”. If Jesus were to talk about what would happen on the third day, this is EXACTLY the turn of phrase he would have used – in exactly the same way as it was used in Esther and 1 Samuel. On this basis, added to the fact that the authors of Esther, 1 Samuel and Matthew all included use of this idiom without incident, I’d return the favour of the “wet floor” argument – we can either accept the skeptical position that there was a mistake made; that Matthew (a smart man!) and everyone else who read the book for the several hundred years afterwards were all so blockheaded that no-one noticed; that ALL contextual scholars (such as Harold Hoehner) are also blockheads; and that the same goes for the authors (and all the readers) of 1 Samuel, Esther and the numerous other books that use similar idiom…. Or, we can take (what to me seems) the far more sensible option (indeed, the option used by secular historians working with secular documents), and say that this is simply the use of a well-recognised, frequently used turn of phrase in the language of the day, much like “bone of contention” above. In my view, it is far more “fundamentalist” to insist that there is a contradiction when there is an overwhelming body of evidence telling us to see the text flowing quite properly. “So here is my question to you. Is there anything in the Bible that you would concede is a contradiction or are you just as much a fundamentalist as you accuse me of being?” Well, seeing as how I’ve shown that the traditional Christian position is a perfectly reasonable one (if not THE most probable one) in this case (and, that this seems to be the case in pretty much all of the ‘contradiction’ examples I’ve looked at in my time), I’ve not yet seen any reason not to give the (original) texts the benefit of the doubt in the same way that any secular historian would treat any ancient secular work. I’m still on the lookout, though… |
|
bud
Jan 11th, 2006 - 7:16 AM |
Re: So, hypothetically speaking...
so jim. i tried to get to the address you gave in your post but got some problems with my computer and couldn't get it. not clear if that was your , "hypothetically speaking" question but from wayne's response really didn't appear to be a question. is there??? |
|
Jimbojsr
Jan 12th, 2006 - 1:06 PM |
Re: Re: So, hypothetically speaking...
It was a response to Wayne’s comment that Matthew 12:40 (that Jesus would be dead for “3 days and 3 nights”) conflicts with Jesus dying just before dusk on Friday, and rising in the early hours of Sunday. My response (briefly) was that, in Jewish idiom of the time, a “day and a night” counted as one unit of time, and any part of this unit would be regarded as the whole unit. There are also other examples in the Bible of this figure of speech being used for exactly the same purpose. If you can’t access the Freewebs site, a more detailed (though slightly disjoined) article can be found at http://www.christian-thinktank.com/q3rdday.html ; there are also numerous, briefer versions of the same data scattered across the web, but none of those I found clearly addressed Wayne’s specific objection (i.e. about “nights” not being mentioned”), which is why I drew up my own. |
|
Wayne Adkins
Jan 12th, 2006 - 3:38 PM |
Re: So, hypothetically speaking...
"If I had presented an obscure, tenuous possible get-out clause, you might have a point – but with this example, I have provided you with more or less concrete proof that the expression “3 days and 3 nights” was FREQUENTLY used as meaning “on the third day”. If Jesus were to talk about what would happen on the third day, this is EXACTLY the turn of phrase he would have used – in exactly the same way as it was used in Esther and 1 Samuel." You call that concrete proof? Oh, I see, you called it more or less concrete. I guess it does qualify as less concrete. I've broken it down for you here: http://www.nakedemperor.netfirms.com/explained again.htm |
|
Jimbojsr
Jan 16th, 2006 - 9:47 AM |
My goodness...
...scholarship! I’m tempted to ask why this wasn’t presented in the first place, but better late than never. Anyway, some very interesting reads – it seems like the term “onah” had a much looser (and more variable, over time) definition than the Azariah quote alone would indicate. After reading your article (and the links within), I did a bit more hunting online, and there actually don’t seem to be that many skeptics who make this big a deal of it. The notable exception is John Powell, a seemingly well-respected skeptic on TheologyWeb who has done some research into it and spent a couple of threads discussing the usage of “onah” with JP Holding, amongst others. Powell actually challenged JP do a debate on this in late 2004, and he accepted; however, due to JP’s heavy schedule and demand as an opponent (plus the fact that it was already quite extensively covered in an earlier thread) this has yet to go ahead (I think so, anyway – I can’t find a record of it in the Gym Debate archives). To do this topic justice, I’m gonna have to give it the time and effort it deserves – this probably includes looking into the “Wednesday crucifixion” scenario proposed by some (which, on first impression, does seem to cause more problems than it solves – but I’ll reserve formal judgement for now). I’ll also try and address your comments on the other biblical examples, and when I’m finished I’ll put it as an addendum to my original article online. Fair enough? |
|
Wayne Adkins
Feb 5th, 2006 - 6:00 AM |
Re: So, hypothetically speaking...
Jimbo, While you're straining credulity looking for a plausible answer, keep in mind that a simple one already exists that covers this and every other contradiction in the Bible. They are just that; contradictions. Yeah, I know, it's not the answer I was looking for either. But I am convinced it is the only intellectually honest answer. It's what you would conclude if you were looking at the Koran isn't it? |
|
Jimbojsr
Feb 8th, 2006 - 2:36 PM |
Re: Re: So, hypothetically speaking...
If I were looking at the Koran, I'd treat it the same way I'd treat any complex ancient document written in a time when society, culture and literary techniques were hugely different to our own - I'd give it the benefit of the doubt until I had very strong reasons to believe that there really was a contradiction. If the matter were equivocal, I'd say that the fault lay with me as an individual far removed (in all meanings of the phrase) from the environment in which the text was written, rather than with the author and countless readers much closer to the event who, mysteriously enough, weren't bothered in the slightest by the expressions used even though they knew an awful lot more about it than I do. |
|
Wayne Adkins
Feb 8th, 2006 - 3:47 PM |
Re: So, hypothetically speaking...
You clearly do not give the Koran the same benefit of the doubt that you give the Bible Jim. If you did you would be Muslim. If you gave the Book of Mormon the same benfit of the doubt you would be Mormon. But you don't. You're talking about researching the idea of a Wednesday crucifixion to avoid admitting an error exists. You previously accepted an explanation that you called "more or less concrete" which was nothing more than an unfounded assertion some apologist pulled out of his a$$. There is a difference between giving a text "the benefit of the doubt" and giving a text the benefit of never being doubted. I have no doubt that you will come up with some answer that satisfies you with regard to this error. But I doubt that you will ever come up with the truth. It's just not what you are looking for. |
|
tracyanne
Apr 29th, 2006 - 5:07 PM |
Re: So, hypothetically speaking...
quote:: There is a difference between giving a text "the benefit of the doubt" and giving a text the benefit of never being doubted. ::quote Wayne, may I use this elsewhere? |
|
Wayne
Apr 29th, 2006 - 5:34 PM |
Re: So, hypothetically speaking...
Please do. |
|
wayne
Jul 30th, 2006 - 4:04 PM |
Re: So, hypothetically speaking...
"Powell actually challenged JP do a debate on this in late 2004, and he accepted; however, due to JP’s heavy schedule and demand as an opponent (plus the fact that it was already quite extensively covered in an earlier thread) this has yet to go ahead (I think so, anyway – I can’t find a record of it in the Gym Debate archives). To do this topic justice, I’m gonna have to give it the time and effort it deserves – this probably includes looking into the “Wednesday crucifixion” scenario proposed by some (which, on first impression, does seem to cause more problems than it solves – but I’ll reserve formal judgement for now). I’ll also try and address your comments on the other biblical examples, and when I’m finished I’ll put it as an addendum to my original article online. Fair enough?" Jimbo, Seems you've learned a lot from Turkel. When you find yourself eating crow you suddenly develop a busy schedule. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you are knee deep in studying that Wednesday crucifixion scenario.
|
|
Wayne Adkins
Feb 9th, 2007 - 10:40 AM |
Re: So, hypothetically speaking...
I see Jimbo removed his "answer" page. I love the juicy irony of Jimbo asking me if I would remove the allegation of error from my site if he could explain how it wasn't an error, then taking down his own "answer" page when it became obvious his own scholarship was lacking. |
| First |
Prev |
Reply |
Home |
Next |
Last |
bravenet.com