Thread: Biblical contradictions

Post 'em here. Let the fundies tell us why they're not contradictory:

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

Originally Posted by Thomas Paine

Post 'em here. Let the fundies tell us why they're not contradictory:

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

So Heli = Jacob? Who's Heli, never heard of him.

And how can Joseph be the father if he isn't the father. I mean, Mary was a virgin right? I guess they meant adopted father.

An invisible unicorn from Mars flew into the sky to cause rain.

None of us believe this but why not?

Because there are a lot of other things that cause rain, like weather patterns. To disprove the theory we just need to find one alternative that is better.

Suppose we didn't know anything about weather patterns. What would the process of examining the unicorn theory look like? We would assemble alternative theories until we found one that was right. How many would we have to examine? As many as it takes. And what would we prove if we examined the alternative theory that invisible centaurs from mars caused rain but it was proven to be false? Not much because disproving the alternative does not prove the original theory. The only thing that matters is finding a better alternative.

So case closed. Right?

Wrong. Once we have a better alternative we get to start over again searcing for alternatives to that one.

The only way to really prove the case is to have examined all the alternatives. Once we have exhausted all the alternatives we can say that the only one left is the original.

So Christians claim the bible says lot's of stuff. Like that God exists. To disprove that just look everywhere and when He is not there the case will be proven.

OK we can't look everywhere. So we will just look in all he most likely places and generalize our results to everywhere.

Gravity is a universal law. It applies to everything with mass everywhere. But we have not seen it everywhere. That is why we use deductive reasoning to say that it applies everywhere.

Deductive reasoning goes like this:

Every swan we have seen is white so all swans are white. For a long time for Europeans this was true. Then guess what? You got it, someone went to another part of the world and guess what they saw. They even named this the Popperian Swan after the man who wrote the thesis on the faults with inductive reasoning.

What of the whole "God exists" question? It can't be disproven. And the better theories are accepted as better for subjective reasons. And as long as there is a claim to supernaturalism then a science that limits itself to naturalism can't even asks the questions. (Because for pragmatic purposes science limits itself to posing theories that can be disproven) Science also starts with the assumption that only the natural exists so questions about the supernatural result in circular reasoning. As long as science is what it is and God is supernatural that question will never be answered scientifically.

Which brings us to where we are. Many of the "faults" people find with the bible are answered by saying that it is supernatural. The bible says a man walked on water. One person says that is impossible. The other answers it is supernatural. It can't be disproven. The supernatural answer always creates an alternative explanation which has not been examined.

But the laws of logic are not bound by the scientific method. We cannot measure the Bible against our observations of the world because a supernatural alternative explanation is always a possibility, but we can measure it against itself.

Does it contradict itself? If God is bound by the laws of logic then it cannot contradict itself in the original writings.

There are times when it does contradict itself and not even the skeptics complain. There are times when it contradicts itself so blatantly that we know it intends to go beyond the laws of logic. For example, there is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy spirit. Each of these is claimed hundreds of times and often in the same sentence. Yet it also claims that there is only one God. This is a paradox. There are tons of paradoxes in life. pure logic has paradoxes and science has paradoxes.

But on a much more pragmatic level there are lots of things in the Bible which are intended to follow the laws of both logic and causation. When it is supposed to follow the laws of logic and the law of causation then we can realistically expect it to be both non-paradoxical and non-contradictory. But with the limits of science (no possibility for absolute proof) and the limits of logic (paradoxes) and the limits of our ability to interpret a passage that was written in a different language a long time ago there are times when this is not possible to know for sure.

We can arrive at ever closer aproximations of the truth in science, logic, and biblical interpretation and that is all we can hope for.

I have read through the various critiques on skeptic websites and virtually all of them are answerable to a degree that is satisfactory to any reasonable person. This doesn't prove the Bible right it just shows that the alternative (errancy) is wrong. Someone could always come up with an objection that would discredit Christianity tomorrow but they have not yet no matter how loudly they say they have.

There are real problem verses (I don't have them on hand and I should go look for them since this has come up twice today) but I have never seen a skeptic use them as weaponry against Christianity nor have I seen Christians worry too much about them.

So those who want to run through a bunch of rabbit trails chasing after the proof that the Bible will be demonstrably wrong or demonstrably right can do it but I will save that for when I think the chase has something else to offer additionally.

So why do I say that this is rabbit trails? Because when someone offers an explanation for the alleged contradiction if the explantation is right then another alleged contradiction will be brought up and if the explanation is not satisfactory then another explanation will be brought up. It is a never ending game of score-keeping where the score means nothing.

I think therefore I am. Beyond that there is faith.

Originally Posted by lakeman

I have read through the various critiques on skeptic websites and virtually all of them are answerable to a degree that is satisfactory to any reasonable person. This doesn't prove the Bible right it just shows that the alternative (errancy) is wrong. Someone could always come up with an objection that would discredit Christianity tomorrow but they have not yet no matter how loudly they say they have.

There are real problem verses (I don't have them on hand and I should go look for them since this has come up twice today) but I have never seen a skeptic use them as weaponry against Christianity nor have I seen Christians worry too much about them.

I'd be satisfied with an explanation for what I posted in post #1. I'm a reasonable person and eagerly await the answer that would explain the discrepency between MAT 1:16 & LUK 3:23.

Originally Posted by Thomas Paine

I'd be satisfied with an explanation for what I posted in post #1. I'm a reasonable person and eagerly await the answer that would explain the discrepency between MAT 1:16 & LUK 3:23.

I doubt that very seriously.

Originally Posted by Heel31ok

I doubt that very seriously.

No, seriously, I'd love an explanation for this conundrum. To date, I've never gotten one. This is the first of many I have. But, I don't want to muddy the waters, so let's just stay on this contradiction until we resolve it.

Originally Posted by Thomas Paine

I'd be satisfied with an explanation for what I posted in post #1. I'm a reasonable person and eagerly await the answer that would explain the discrepency between MAT 1:16 & LUK 3:23.

Um, no, you are not a reasonable person.

Originally Posted by lakeman

Um, no, you are not a reasonable person.

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

Originally Posted by lakeman

Um, no, you are not a reasonable person.

Fine, but answer the OP. Why are you dodging it? Here we are, nine posts in, and all you've done so far is posted up a nonsensical essay that doesn't even so much as mention the OP. Why the dodge?

Originally Posted by Thomas Paine

Fine, but answer the OP. Why are you dodging it? Here we are, nine posts in, and all you've done so far is posted up a nonsensical essay that doesn't even so much as mention the OP. Why the dodge?

I am not answering it because you are not seriously interested in an answer.

Because you have already admitted and demonstrated that you love to play games and that all you will do is ask question after question ad nauseum.

As I said before when there is another reason to answer I will. For example if answering the question will demonstrate again that you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about when it comes to religion then I will answer it. But so far you have not said anything stupid on this thread.