Well, there ARE contradictions within 2 verses of each other!

[skepticbud]

14. I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
15. so that no one would say you were baptized in my name.
16. .Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. (1st Corinthians 1:14-16, NASB)

Paul first says he baptized Crispus and Gaius and specifically said NO OTHERS.

Then, two verses later, corrects himself and adds a third party he baptized to the former and exclusive list of two.

***Reminder: In case you forget, the following excuse, when applied without thought and just whenever you need it to get you out of jam fast, will never leave you without words. After all, fumbling the ball is better than completely missing it, right?

"skepticbud just doesn't understand the fact that the ancient jewish mind thought about things in such a different way from today's Americans, that is it absolutely impossible to find something contradictory in the bible that cannot be glossed over with this cheesy uncontrolled it-was-a-different-culture-excuse-just-add-water-rinse-lather-repeat-as-often-as-desired-makes-about-4-million-servings."

[cloaked_dagger]

That doesn't sound like a contradiction to me. It looks as if Paul is having a recollection of his thoughts while writing his letter to Corinthia. He mentions the only people he baptized, and then remembers that "oh yes, there was one more." Which, as you recorded, was the house of Stephanas. That's why he says afterward, "beyond that I do not know whether I baptized any other." In other words, I can't remember if there was anyone else...

[Dee Dee Warren]

Are you really that thick? Or is the beer?

[skepticbud]

Today @ 11:52 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80775#post80775)
cloaked_dagger:

That doesn't sound like a contradiction to me. It looks as if Paul is having a recollection of his thoughts while writing his letter to Corinthia. He mentions the only people he baptized, and then remembers that "oh yes, there was one more." Which, as you recorded, was the house of Stephanas. That's why he says afterward, "beyond that I do not know whether I baptized any other." In other words, I can't remember if there was anyone else...

Sorry, i don't see how "whoops, let me add one more to that" means it's not a contradiction.

By your standards, no attorny could ever prove contradictions in anybody's testimony; for as soon as he does, they can just back up and say "oh yeah, well, I forgot about that, so here's what i really meant to say..."

Face it, under inspiration of god (and therefore should have had more of a clear mind than most people) paul contradicted himself.

Sure, he went back and "corrected" it, but then, you can't correct something unless there was something wrong with it that needed fixing.

Something uttered under inspiration of god, needed fixing?

By the way Dee Dee, what exact form of bible inspiration doctrine do you hold to? Obviously not dictation, how about verbal plenary, mystic...what?

[jpholding]

It's the beer, obviously. Get ready, Bud, it's another of those icky Greco-Roman rhetoric thingys you're scared pantsless over.

This is an example by Paul of a "negation idiom" which expresses the idea, in light of the Corinthians' undue emphasis on baptism (warned against throughout the letter), that Paul considers the practice of baptism to be secondary to preaching the gospel. His manner or writing -- the way he adds as a comment that he also remembers baptizing the household of Stephanus, but can't recall who else, is a rhertorical tactic throwing cold water on the Corinthians' "baptism frenzy". Those who suggest that Paul is "correcting himself" on his "mistake" of saying he only baptized two people are simply ignorant of the subtle art of Greco-Roman rhetoric. The "recollection" is intentional, and Bud is an ignorant goof who calls scholarship an excuse.

Back to your beer. :rofl:

[Sher]

Now let's see what these verses are saying ...

"I give thanks to God that no one of you did I baptize, except Crispus and Gaius-- that no one may say that to my own name I did baptize; and I did baptize also Stephanas' household--further, I have not known if I did baptize any other." (YLT)

So he says he baptized no one of you (in the assembly of Corinth) except for Crispus (Acts 18:8) and Gaius (Rom 16:23) ... interupts himself to add emphasis that no one can say he baptized in his own name ... they only had to check with the church leader and the assembly host for confirmation of this fact ... then finishes his thought saying that he also baptized the household of Stephanas.

The interuption was necessary ... he is saying that the important people he just mentioned ... the leaders, Crispus and Gaius ... would be the two witnesses necessary for proving his claim.

:no:

[skepticbud]

Today @ 03:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80874#post80874)
jpholding:

It's the beer, obviously. Get ready, Bud, it's another of those icky Greco-Roman rhetoric thingys you're scared pantsless over.

This is an example by Paul of a "negation idiom" which expresses the idea, in light of the Corinthians' undue emphasis on baptism (warned against throughout the letter), that Paul considers the practice of baptism to be secondary to preaching the gospel. His manner or writing -- the way he adds as a comment that he also remembers baptizing the household of Stephanus, but can't recall who else, is a rhertorical tactic throwing cold water on the Corinthians' "baptism frenzy".


But "Cloaked_Dagger", another Christian here, interpreted that passage literally and said Paul merely remembered suddenly that there was one more party to add to the exclusive list.

so it is not self-evident at all that Paul was using rehtoric, and none of your assertions above require that it was rhetoric, it is merely an interpretation.

By the way, your article on this subject makes some atrocious statements, such as the hairsplitting about about Stephanus not being mentioned as part of the Corinthian readers paul was writing to.

Question: If Stephanus was truly unknown to the Corinthian readers, would Paul have mentioned him without explanation? No.

So, Holding, remember when Janet bought my stereo?

See how stupid it is to assume Paul was just rattling off a name that the Corinthians didn't recognize? Surely they recognized it.

But since literal interpretation is the default position unless you have compelling reasons to interpret otherwise (and you provided assertions and alternatives, not compelling reasons) the literal interpretation stands, as the following commentaries show:

"Also the household of Stephanas (kai ton Stepana oikon). Mentioned as an afterthought. Robertson and Plummer suggest that Paul's amanuensis reminded him of this case." (Robertson's Word Pictures)

Now hold it just a cotten pickin' minute! Robertson's explanation and the one he cares to mention has nothing to do with "greco-roman rhetoric"! Paul's secretary reminded him, and so the baptism of Stephanus was an afterthought!

EXACTLY what I said it was.



Those who suggest that Paul is "correcting himself" on his "mistake" of saying he only baptized two people are simply ignorant of the subtle art of Greco-Roman rhetoric.


So subtle, you cannot prove your case, and thus offer mere assertion that yes, Paul shore wuhz using this rhetoric alright.



The "recollection" is intentional, and Bud is an ignorant goof who calls scholarship an excuse.


But the great greek grammarian Archibald Robertson disagrees with you in his standard reference work on the meaning of NT phrases, which is required reading in seminaries across the nation.



Back to your beer. :rofl:

How can I go back to my beer when you have stolen it?

[Sher]

Today @ 05:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81162#post81162)
skepticbud:

But "Cloaked_Dagger", another Christian here, interpreted that passage literally and said Paul merely remembered suddenly that there was one more party to add to the exclusive list.Tsk ... reading comprehension, Bud ... CD said:
That doesn't sound like a contradiction to me. It looks as if Paul is having a recollection of his thoughts while writing his letter to Corinthia. He mentions the only people he baptized, and then remembers that "oh yes, there was one more." Which, as you recorded, was the house of Stephanas. That's why he says afterward, "beyond that I do not know whether I baptized any other." In other words, I can't remember if there was anyone else...{emphasis added} ... so CD ... based on what you said ... answered that those verses don't appear to be a contradiction as you say they are ....

And they are not ... as was pointed out above ... But let's see how you spin that one ...

"Oh Master of Beer and Bong" :bow: :cheers:

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD

Bud, if Paul had said,

"I baptized Gaius at the sixth hour yesterday--I mean, the ninth hour..."

would that count as a Bible error?

[jpholding]

But "Cloaked_Dagger", another Christian here, interpreted that passage literally and said Paul merely remembered suddenly that there was one more party to add to the exclusive list.

You're right, I should start a holy war at once. :rofl:

Cloaked probably is not aware of GR rhetoric. But I'll bet unlike you, he is willing to learn.

so it is not self-evident at all that Paul was using rehtoric,

Not unless you do the needed homework, no.

and none of your assertions above require that it was rhetoric,

Nope, just GRR study is what requires it. :rofl: Head out of sand, Bud.

By the way, your article on this subject makes some atrocious statements, such as the hairsplitting about about Stephanus not being mentioned as part of the Corinthian readers paul was writing to.

When you sober up you can explain that to us in more detail.

literal interpretation stands, as the following commentaries show:

Sorry, unless Robertson is aware of GRR, that's not any kind of "stand" but a case of you trying to ply someone with as little contextual education in evidence as you have. He's a grammarian, not someone who necessarilyread the works of Quintillian or Aristotle on rhetoric, and there are people out there who specialize in GRR and THEY are who you are dealing with Paste this to your mirror, Bud: CRITICAL COMPARISON. May make a nice T shirt if you don't stain it with beer.

How can I go back to my beer when you have stolen it?

You know how to stagger down to the 7-11, don't you?

[Defenestrator]

skepticbud:

14. I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
15. so that no one would say you were baptized in my name.
16. .Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. (1st Corinthians 1:14-16, NASB)



That's funny, I count three "errors." First he says "I baptized none of you." Then in the same verse we find a horrible error that I'm suprised Paul didn't catch when he was obviously making up the Bible: "except Crispus." You see that! First he says nobody and then he says Crispus. But wait! There's more! Then he says "and Gaius." That's 2 errors in a row! Inerrant schminerrant. But here comes the coup d'etat, the Crown Royale, the King of Kings, the Error to end all Errors, the Cadillac of Contradictions: "Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas." I suggest you read this paragraph again, lest you missed the in-your-face contradictions.

"Nobody was baptized."
"Except Crispus." <= Error #1
"And Gaius." <= Error #2
"Also, the house of Stephanas." <= Error #3

How dare anybody pass this blatantly erronous book off as the Word of God! I am absolutely livid. I am vomitting with anger. I'm oozing with sarcasm.

[Sher]

Today @ 09:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81449#post81449)
Defenestrator:

I am absolutely livid. I am vomitting with anger. I'm oozing with sarcasm.

:lol:

[The Laughing Man]

Today @ 08:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81449#post81449)
Defenestrator:

That's funny, I count three &quot;errors.&quot;

*gasp* But... but that would mean Bud is... is... in error. If he's in error, that means everything he has ever said is in error and should be ignored. In fact, it means that he is a figment of someone's imagination - he simply doesn't exist. :hrm:


I am absolutely livid. I am vomitting with anger. I'm oozing with sarcasm.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Blake Reas]

Skepticbud,

Why don't you do the world a favor and go and read some DeSilva, Pilch, Malina, anyone! Instead of automatically coming on here and spewing your ignorance.
Also you fail to understand something my faith does not rest on inerrancy. So what is your point? I believe in it but I do not see it as necessary to faith.
Blake:hrm:

[DBoone]

"Nobody was baptized."
"Except Crispus." <= Error #1
"And Gaius." <= Error #2
"Also, the house of Stephanas." <= Error #3

<How dare anybody pass this blatantly erronous book off as the Word of God! I am absolutely livid. I am vomitting with anger. I'm oozing with sarcasm.>

Defenestrator -
I don't know anything about GRR even if I've caught myself doing it since Holding has mentioned it, but even if Paul was only backpedalling, that would still not constitue as an error, because Paul is correcting himself even in the process of writing down the account.

He was not like you and I, who type on a computer keyboard and can backspace any time we want to correct ourselves. The standard practice was to either blot out the error and rewrite that section or to correct the statement within the passage.

I could be wrong about this method, but the logic of Paul's statement still stands by both GRR and common sense.

I'm still wondering if you're ever going to just read the Bible intead of nit-picking on it.

This reminds me of when 'backward masking' in rock music was a big thing. People would spend hours listening to Led Zep and KISS backwards to try and glean some satanic message, when all they had to do was set the needle down and play it normally from beginning to end, and the message was fairly obvious to anyone with ears.

Maybe you could try that with the Bible: y'know, start at the beginning, read to the end, get the basic message and decide for yourself if that's what you want from life.

I'll even give you a hint, 2 words: love and salvation.

[Nowhere357]

Jinx72:


*gasp* But... but that would mean Bud is... is... [i]in error. If he's in error, that means everything he has ever said is in error and should be ignored. In fact, it means that he is a figment of someone's imagination - he simply doesn't exist. :hrm:


Impressive strawman. Interestingly, Bud doesn't claim to be divinely inspired.

Contradictions exist in the bible, which is hard to explain if it's divinely inspired, and rolling around on the floor instead of dealing with the issue seems foolish.

[Defenestrator]

DBoone:

Maybe you could try that with the Bible: y'know, start at the beginning, read to the end, get the basic message and decide for yourself if that's what you want from life.

I'll even give you a hint, 2 words: love and salvation.

Remember what I said:I'm oozing with sarcasm. I'm a Christian. I totally agree with you.

[Sher]

Today @ 12:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82044#post82044)
Nowhere357:

Impressive strawman. Interestingly, Bud doesn't claim to be divinely inspired.But he does use the same fallacious logic ... hence the laughter.
Contradictions exist in the bible, which is hard to explain if it's divinely inspired, and rolling around on the floor instead of dealing with the issue seems foolish. Impressively unsupported assertion ... which is easy to understand when you have no evidence.

[DBoone]

Oops, sorry Defenestrator. I totally missed that point and just jumped on my soapbox.

:doh:

:shrug:

:ahem:

[Nowhere357]

SherBear:

Impressively unsupported assertion ... which is easy to understand when you have no evidence.

You are unaware that contradictions exist in the bible?

Enter keyword "bible contradictions" and educate yourself.

[$cirisme]

You are unaware that contradictions exist in the bible?

I am aware that people claim that there are contradictions. :smile:


Enter keyword "bible contradictions" and educate yourself.

Tsk. Tsk. Tsk.

Trying to get someone else to do your work? :no:

Why don't you educate us? :teeth:

[Nowhere357]

Today @ 08:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82198#post82198)
cirisme:

Why don't you educate us?

You are responsible for your own education. There are dozens of sites, full of information on the subject.

Here is a theistic site, which can help with your defense:

http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/b08.html

You'll need the help to defend against:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

http://www.webster.sk.ca/greenwich/bible-a.htm

Have fun.

[Defenestrator]

Nowhere357:

You are unaware that contradictions exist in the bible?

Enter keyword &quot;bible contradictions&quot; and educate yourself.

An idea: Why don't you tell us the contradiction that you personally have the hardest time reconciling. I mean, we could literally spend years talking about if the Bible really says that pi=3 and other such nonsense, but it seems to me that most of that kind of stuff is just what some skeptics do in order to avoid talking about real issues. In my experience, the atheists who question the Bible about real difficulties are a much better witness :rofl: :smile: for their cause than the atheists who read the Bible and don't take the time to see if it really is a difficulty.

[$cirisme]

There are dozens of sites, full of information on the subject.

And if I wanted to read a site, I would, now wouldn't I?

Why don't you tell us of the errors YOU have found or the errors YOU find hardest to reconcile?

BTW, using links to argue is against the rules.

[Nowhere357]

cirisme:

And if I wanted to read a site, I would, now wouldn't I?


Depends on your motivation. Is your interest in determining truth, or is your interest in defending your worldview?

I personally have no trouble reconciling the contradictions in the bible.

BTW the links were not provided as an argument. I was asked for help in educating someone, and I attempted to provide such. Notice my first choice was a theistic site. I have no interest in promoting bias.

That the bible is full of contradictions is a fact. The position that it is not, has no more merit then the position that the earth is flat. If someone holds such a view, I am willing to point them in the right direction, but I see no point in arguing about it. The reality challenged have nothing to teach me.

[jpholding]

Impressive strawman. Interestingly, Bud doesn't claim to be divinely inspired.

He does however claim to be right. Has been since before you got here. :hrm:

Contradictions exist in the bible, which is hard to explain if it's divinely inspired, and rolling around on the floor instead of dealing with the issue seems foolish.

:zzz:

True. Heaping vague generalities is MUCH more productive. :rofl:

[$cirisme]

Is your interest in determining truth, or is your interest in defending your worldview?

Both.


I personally have no trouble reconciling the contradictions in the bible.

So why do you believe in contradictions if you have no problem making them go away? :eek:


I have no interest in promoting bias.

Good


That the bible is full of contradictions is a fact.

Then it should be real easy to point me to the worst contradiction(not link) in there, shouldn't it?


The position that it is not, has no more merit then the position that the earth is flat.

Assertions. Assertions. Assertions. :zzz:


f someone holds such a view, I am willing to point them in the right direction

Then point me to a few of the worst. Chapter and verse references would be most helpful. :smile:


I see no point in arguing about it.

Then why are you at a debate forum? :hrm:


The reality challenged have nothing to teach me.

I put no trust in talk, but in action. :whack: If you even try to defend your view(and I think this not only of you alone, but of everyone I disagree with), you will earn my deepest respect, but if you don't, you will have my sympathies.

Have a nice day.

[Nowhere357]

cirisme:

Both.


Good answer.


So why do you believe in contradictions if you have no problem making them go away?

Because they exist. Perhaps a better question might be : How do I make them go away?


Then it should be real easy to point me to the worst contradiction(not link) in there, shouldn't it?


Yes. I can also provide your most likely defense, and the refutation of that defense.


Then point me to a few of the worst. Chapter and verse references would be most helpful.

Why? I think you have been exposed to the information. If you still think there are no contradictions in the bible, then you are reality challenged. IMHO.

Notice I haven't claimed that the contradictions cannot be reconciled. The fact is that the contradictions exist.


Then why are you at a debate forum?

To discuss valid and interesting worldviews. Hopefully to correct errors in my thinking when appropriate, and hopefully to plant a few seeds, again when appropriate. I am NOT here to argue with someone who thinks the earth is flat.


I put no trust in talk, but in action. If you even try to defend your view(and I think this not only of you alone, but of everyone I disagree with), you will earn my deepest respect, but if you don't, you will have my sympathies.


If your view is that contradictions in the bible don't exist, then I will accept your sympathies. And you would have mine. :)

[Sher]

Today @ 04:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82305#post82305)
Nowhere357:

Yes. I can also provide your most likely defense, and the refutation of that defense.

See Cir ... that's why he doesn't have to argue ... he will just give both sides ... in anticipation of what you will say :lol:

Hey Nowhere? Your name isn't "Jim", is it? :eek:

Or is this a prevalent thing nowadays ... for skeptics to just assert without showing any actual evidence? oh ... save some links, anyway.

[Socrates]

Nobrain357:That the bible is full of contradictions is a fact. The position that it is not, has no more merit then the position that the earth is flat. If someone holds such a view, I am willing to point them in the right direction, but I see no point in arguing about it. The reality challenged have nothing to teach me.Of course, not only can he not provide examples, it's doubtful whether he even knows what a contradiction is: a simultaneous negation and denial of the same proposition, a and not-a (a.~a).

[Nowhere357]

SherBear:

See Cir ... that's why he doesn't have to argue ... he will just give both sides ... in anticipation of what you will say

A biblical contradiction was provided in the original post. Various reconciliations were then provided.

But the contradiction exists.

So what is there to argue about?


Hey Nowhere? Your name isn't "Jim", is it?

No. My name is Keith.


Or is this a prevalent thing nowadays ... for skeptics to just assert without showing any actual evidence?

I find it pointless to argue about whether the earth is flat. There is ample evidence for the existence of a non-flat earth, and anyone who still claims the earth is flat is reality-challenged.

There are many contradictions in the bible. There is ample evidence for the truth of this statement. For example, NO-ONE has claimed that the contradiction stated in the original post is actually not in the bible - only reconciliations were offered.

SO anyone who still claims that the bible does not contain contradictions, is reality challenged.

[Nowhere357]

Socrates:

Nobrain357:

Oh, what a powerful insult! My position must be wrong!

[Socrates]

Nobrain:I find it pointless to argue about whether the earth is flat. There is ample evidence for the existence of a non-flat earth, and anyone who still claims the earth is flat is reality-challenged.:rotfl:the only people on this board who have defended a flat earth were some village atheists! :poke:There are many contradictions in the bible. There is ample evidence for the truth of this statement. For example, NO-ONE has claimed that the contradiction stated in the original post is actually not in the bible - only reconciliations were offered. The reconciliations showed that the intended PROPOSITIONS behind the Greco-Roman rhetoric were not contradictory.

Get the idea about the actual proposition v. the words? If someone says "it is raining cats and dogs all around me" and then says "I haven't seen a pet all day", there is no contradiction because the actual proposition of the first is "it is raining very heavily". But it's just like the usual village atheists who wallow inthe darker hovels of the Internet to read the Bible like a 21st century newspaper.

[Defenestrator]

Nowhere357:

A biblical contradiction was provided in the original post. Various reconciliations were then provided.

But the contradiction exists.

So what is there to argue about?

A reconciled "contradiction" isn't a contradiction, by definition. If it was a contradiction, it wouldn't be able to be reconciled.

[Sher]

Today @ 05:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82357#post82357)
Nowhere357:

There are many contradictions in the bible. There is ample evidence for the truth of this statement. For example, NO-ONE has claimed that the contradiction stated in the original post is actually not in the bible - only reconciliations were offered. No one needed to "claim" anything ... that is only believed by someone who has had their head too far into a bottle of beer like Bud there ... and a few teeny-boppers with Frontpage and too much time on their hands.
SO anyone who still claims that the bible does not contain contradictions, is reality challenged. WOW ... you wanna try for a logical conclusion this time ... no one jumped on false claims to claim otherwise so that means that the false claims are true? Hmmm... :huh:

BTW ... need a dictionary (http://www.dictionary.com) to look up the meaning of reconcile? :rofl: By definition a reconcile shows that there wasn't a contradiction in the first place ... only a skewed understanding.

[jpholding]

Nice to see Nowheres is perceived the same all over.

In short, another Skeptic whpo hurls elephants, then doesn't want to discuss the solutions because they're beyond his ability to discuss.

Ya'll see every minute why I like Kyle so much. :smile:

[JCA]

Wow.. this place is getting like ToL with all the feelings being expressed..

Why don't us Christians just take Nowhere357 out and hang him?? After all, how dare he at least try and discuss things without name calling and condescension.

It seems to me that he has his beliefs, and like many here isn't afraid to share them.. but he certainly behaves a lot better than some of the "Christians" replying to him. If such "Christians" have been on the boards so long as to only be able to to be rude etc., then I suggest they themselves take a break and read their Bible and find some inner peace.. instead of lording their Chrisitanity like some prideful crown they believe they have gained.

So Nowehere has said he believes there are contradictions.. and I guess not ONE Christian here has ever had that thought.. :ahem: At no time, right? Everything you have ever been told about the Bible was never in contradiction for you.. and obviously never required you to go and look something up.. after all, the whole Baptism thing has never been an issue.. the fact that some say it is necessary and others say it isn't, has never seemed contradictory at all... Why do we bother with the Bible at all? Why not just let some man tell us what it all means.. after all, anyone tellinhg us has done ALL that work already right??

So Nowhere thinks there are contradictions.. so have I.. I too have thought there where many contradictions.. it took some of those things a few years to work out of my system because I didn't find the correct solution to them right away.. but of course, all those "Chrisitans" in this thread have NEVER once questioned something they thought was right (or wrong) when shown context... :argh:

Nowehere357, from the few threads I have read today, I would like to tell you that I appreciate your ability to not slap back when being spat upon. I also appreciate the fact that you haven't resorted to name calling (that I have seen), and I hope you stay that way.. if more people didn't take the bait, a lot more learning might go on..

As for the "Contradictions", Nowhere357, I would like to say that I once thought like you.. and I even have a site I still leave up that contains just about all of them that have really meant anything.. But, in the end, it boils down to what you consider "inspiration" and what you really consider to be a Contradiction when shown an explanation for it.

If you are talking about Contradictions with Science, then yes I think you will find that many agree that there are apparent contradictions.. but then you will also find some, like myself, who do not see those same contradictions.

If you are talking about the verse as posted in the first post of this thread, then I too would say that the way YOU are looking at it DOES create a contradiction. However, I think that is because of the way you are viewing "Inspiration". The fact that Paul corrected himself can indeed show that there was some inspiration.. but understand that it wasn't 'dictation'. Paul was inspired to share what he had done/knew.. while recording such, in inspiration, he is reminded of others, and makes ammends for it.

As it was pointed out somewhere between you being told to get more beer, and not toying with teeny-boppers - or some other totally rude and useless inanities - that this wouldn't be considered contradiction if you looked at it in that light.. and in the light of how people wrote letters back then.

True, you can say that we don't know for sure HOW things where done, but with work and a lot of reference, these things can be discovered. Maybe not to a perfect point where ALL would say "Okay, I see now.", but enough to give us a good indication that the explanation given is in fact worth heavy consideration.

Here's an example of an inconsistancy, which is what I think you really mean instead of contradiction (although, I do admit to being wrong sometimes :cool: ):

Psalm 10:1 God cannot be found in time of need. He is "far off."
Psalm 145:18 God is near to all who call upon him in truth.

Inconsistant? Contrary even? Maybe.. what do these verses actually say?

Psalm 10
1 Why standest thou afar off, O LORD? why hidest thou thyself in times of trouble?

Psalm 145
18 The LORD is nigh unto all them that call upon him, to all that call upon him in truth.

Now you read the passages, do you see the same discrepency? I don't.. the first line of PSalm 10 claims times of trouble.. during which God is "far off".. Why? Well, there is nothing in that line to tell us what kind of trouble.. was this 'trouble' something that would have been avoided if one had been following God? Who knows! Did you read the Psalm fully?

The second quote from Psalm 145 says that God will be close for those that call him in truth.

Now, how are these inconsistant, or even contrary.. in one instance you have someone asking why God isn't there, even though they have tried to be right etc.. but no knowledge of whether or not there is 'truth' in what is being spoken about.. and on the other instance, you have a simple statement that IF God is called in truth, he will be there.

Do you see what I am saying, Nowhere357?

Just so you know, I too have gone through about everything on the Infidels.Org inconsistancy list, and the Flaws list etc.. I've gone through Farrell Till's 'Prophecy' work.. I'd be happy to sit down and discuss some of them with you, and what I discovered, and why I think as I do.

I also hope this helps you, rather than just compound your beliefs that you can't get straight answers from Christians.. I'm no JPHolding when it comes to apologetics, or even when it comes to GRR etc.. but I can tell you that I have been where you are at, and will gladly show you the path I took out of it, even if you don't want to walk it yourself.

In Love and Peace

JCA

[Nowhere357]

Defenestrator:

A reconciled &quot;contradiction&quot; isn't a contradiction, by definition. If it was a contradiction, it wouldn't be able to be reconciled.

Given this definition, I can understand your view. Based on this, I will retract the "reality-challenged" comment.

My position is still valid, however. After studying several examples of dictionary definitions, I think it's safe to say that for statements to be in contradiction, it is NOT necessary for there to be no reconciliation possible.

For example:

contradiction : a statement or phrase whose parts contradict each other

contradict : to imply the opposite or a denial of

Thus, the fact that reconciliation is seen as necessary, is ample evidence that the contradictions exist.

Again: if there were no contradictions, then no reconciliations would be required.

Again: a reconciliation does not make the contradiction disappear - it "merely" resolves it.

BTW thanks for the insult-and-ROFL-free post. :)

[Nowhere357]

JCA:
As for the &quot;Contradictions&quot;, Nowhere357, I would like to say that I once thought like you.. and I even have a site I still leave up that contains just about all of them that have really meant anything.. But, in the end, it boils down to what you consider &quot;inspiration&quot; and what you really consider to be a Contradiction when shown an explanation for it.


The question of inspriration is an important one, and I see you have contributed to the thread on the subject. I will pay close attention to what you have to say.


If you are talking about the verse as posted in the first post of this thread, then I too would say that the way YOU are looking at it DOES create a contradiction.

Actually, I have no particular interest in that verse. I don't find it to be compelling evidence against inspiration of the bible, although it is another brick in a rather large wall. My point is only that it is adequate to support the idea that contradictions do in fact exist in the bible.


Here's an example of an inconsistancy, which is what I think you really mean instead of contradiction

I would say that all contradictions are an inconsistancy, but not vice-versa. As was pointed out in a post somewhere above, a contradiction can be put into symbolic language, and I think the OP example fits into that category.


Psalm 10:1 God cannot be found in time of need. He is "far off."
Psalm 145:18 God is near to all who call upon him in truth.

Psalm 10
1 Why standest thou afar off, O LORD? why hidest thou thyself in times of trouble?

Psalm 145
18 The LORD is nigh unto all them that call upon him, to all that call upon him in truth.

Now, how are these inconsistant, or even contrary.. in one instance you have someone asking why God isn't there, even though they have tried to be right etc.. but no knowledge of whether or not there is 'truth' in what is being spoken about.. and on the other instance, you have a simple statement that IF God is called in truth, he will be there.

Do you see what I am saying, Nowhere357?


Yes, and I agree your interpretation is reasonable. You have resolved the contradiction/inconsistency.


I also hope this helps you, rather than just compound your beliefs that you can't get straight answers from Christians

It does help, and I appreciate your efforts.

With respect :)

[Marchwick]

A reconciled "contradiction" isn't a contradiction, by definition. If it was a contradiction, it wouldn't be able to be reconciled.

Given this definition, I can understand your view. Based on this, I will retract the "reality-challenged" comment.

My position is still valid, however. After studying several examples of dictionary definitions, I think it's safe to say that for statements to be in contradiction, it is NOT necessary for there to be no reconciliation possible.

For example:

contradiction : a statement or phrase whose parts contradict each other

contradict : to imply the opposite or a denial of

Thus, the fact that reconciliation is seen as necessary, is ample evidence that the contradictions exist.

Again: if there were no contradictions, then no reconciliations would be required.

Again: a reconciliation does not make the contradiction disappear - it "merely" resolves it.


It seems to me, Nowhere357, that you are using the word 'contradiction' in the way that other people would say, 'apparent contradiction.' 'It is a fact that there appears to be contradictions in the bible' would be something that all could agree on, and to deny that WOULD be reality-challenged. Whether they actually ARE contradictions is another matter, and you would need to look at specific examples. The difference is between what appears to be at first, and how it then looks after you have examined it in-depth. There is a world of difference between the statements: 'The world, in our everyday experience, seems to be flat' and 'the world is flat.'



It seems to me that he has his beliefs, and like many here isn't afraid to share them.. but he certainly behaves a lot better than some of the "Christians" replying to him. If such "Christians" have been on the boards so long as to only be able to to be rude etc., then I suggest they themselves take a break and read their Bible and find some inner peace.. instead of lording their Chrisitanity like some prideful crown they believe they have gained.


Oh, come on. What you have to realise is that some of these people here have been dealing with sceptics whose mode of operating goes a lot like this:

Funda-Sceptic: 'Hey! look! the bible says this! Isn't this crazy?' or, 'hey, look at this list of 1 000 000 bible contradictions that I cut and pasted from half a dozen sceptical sites without even reading them! Now unless you can refute them all, this proves the bible is wrong.'

(Apologist spends 20 years or so examining each individual issue in context, etc, etc...)

Apologist: Look, see? If you take into account blah blah blah, so it's not really a contradiction at all!

Funda-Sceptic: Aw, none of that stuff counts! Just reading it literally in the english version is enough to see that it is a contradiction!

Apologist: But look, I just gave you good reasons for why that is not a contradiction. What about answering them?

Funda-Sceptic: Aw, none of that stuff counts! Just reading it literally in the english version is enough to see that it is a contradiction!

Apologist: Are you even listening to anything that I am saying?

(funda-sceptic repeats same tired old excuses louder and louder)

So, obviously, anyone who comes along who seems to be pulling stuff from the same bag of tricks,(like declaring that there are contradictions and not even talking about any specific examples, just referring to lists of contradictions on other websites) are going to get tarred with the same brush, even if they are trying to say something different. The Apologist is going to think, 'Oh no, here comes another one, here we go again,' and may not be as charitable as you would like. That's what happens when people go around declaring blanket statements without even explaining what they mean.
- RW Marchwick

[Sher]

Yesterday @ 10:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82652#post82652)
Nowhere357:

Again: if there were no contradictions, then no reconciliations would be required.
That's not true, Nowhere.

I could say that you made a contradition in two of your posts ... and you defend yourself and show how it is not a contradiction ... which reconciles it for me .... does this prove that you made a contradiction? Or that I misunderstood what you said and the problem was mine?

Look at it this way ... You are blamed for a crime ... and prove your innocence ... which "reconciles" you with the court of law ... does this prove you were guilty? Or resolve that you were falsely accused?

By your reasoning here, you are claiming something that reverses the cause and effect. The effect is that the reconcilliation happened ... it was explained to you (or anyone) ... the cause was that there was a question of whether something was a contradiction. To say the opposite ... that because it was explained, it was wrong ... is just ... well ... illogical, don't you think?
Again: a reconciliation does not make the contradiction disappear - it &quot;merely&quot; resolves it.But this statement assumes facts not in evidence ... that there was ever a contradiction in the first place. It is logical to see that there could be lack of contradiction ... instead a misunderstanding by the skeptic ... and still need a "reconciliation" to show the skeptic where he erred in his reasoning. A reconciliation is a resolve ... a resolve in this case of the error that the skeptic made ... not of any contradiction that existed. This is evidenced by the fact that the lack of contradiction was proven. Bud was wrong ... and shown where he erred.

[Evangel]

i think weve finally managed to subdue the beast known as "skeptic bud" but i know im hoping for too much. :teeth:

edit: unfortunately were left with the "open minded skeptic" nowhere357. :smile: just kiddin man. your alright. hehe.

[jpholding]

Evangel:

Bud flits from thread to thread, ignoring some for a week or more, but he may drop in again eventually, or start a new thread on the same topic.

I will say that nowhere is a prince compared to Bud.

[Nowhere357]

Marchwick:

It seems to me, Nowhere357, that you are using the word 'contradiction' in the way that other people would say, 'apparent contradiction.' 'It is a fact that there appears to be contradictions in the bible' would be something that all could agree on, and to deny that WOULD be reality-challenged.

As you describe it here, I realize that is indeed how I was thinking.

I've gone over the definitions carefully, and will concede that "contradiction" can be interpreted to mean "an apparent contradiction which cannot be reconciled".

I'm only conceding half a point, though, because it can ALSO be interpreted to mean "a contradiction exists if opposition or denial is implied", which was my thinking.

SO the issue has reduced to semantics. In my defense, I'll note that the OP example can be put into the symbolic form of a contradiction, which IMO is enough to show that contradiction exist in the bible. But I guess the same could be found in ANY book, and so the point is moot.


There is a world of difference between the statements: 'The world, in our everyday experience, seems to be flat' and 'the world is flat.'

Great example, because it's literally true! :thumb:


That's what happens when people go around declaring blanket statements without even explaining what they mean.

I think it would be more accurate to say : that's what happens when people jump to conclusions. (Which is part of human nature, BTW.)

[Nowhere357]

SherBear:

That's not true, Nowhere.


I understand your position better now, and concede I was at least partially in error.

I think there is NO contradiction which cannot be resolved, if one is creative enough. I have studied lists of (apparent) biblical contradictions, and their resolutions, and my conclusion is that the bible requires liberal interpretation.

Which is why I saw no point in bringing up any specific example. I feel confident that no example will convice a theist that the bible is fallible, and no resolution will convince a skeptic that the bible is not fallible.

I am more interested in the idea that the (apparent) contradictions prove that the bible requires liberal interpretation, which in turn allows me to think that the concept of eternal damnation is base on faulty interpretation.

I find the notion of "believe as we do or go to hell (literally!)" to be an extremely offensive idea. I believe a good god would judge us on our morality and intentions, and not on which religion/philosophy we believe in, especially considering that our religion depends on where we happen to be born (to a large extent).

But that's off thread. You've helped me to identify an error in my thinking - I've corrected my worldview, and I thank you.

[Nowhere357]

Evangel:

edit: unfortunately were left with the &quot;open minded skeptic&quot; nowhere357. :smile: just kiddin man. your alright. hehe.

Sometiomes I can recognize (imagine?) an insult, even when disguised.

The way you put "open minded skeptic" into quotes bothers me. I wonder what you think the definition of "open minded skeptic" is?

One thing I think it means is: I can expect to be attacked by "close-minded gnostics".

[Sher]

Yesterday @ 11:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=84169#post84169)
Nowhere357:

But that's off thread. You've helped me to identify an error in my thinking - I've corrected my worldview, and I thank you.

You're welcome :angel:

If I came across too blunt to you ... I apologize ... it wasn't my intent but I can see why I may have hurt your feelings.

And I will also concede that there are some who manufacture explanations for skeptics questions ... but that is true for any group ... I don't think that those who do, do so because of malicious intent ... but rather via lack of knowledge and a sincere willingness to "explain" something that they have not fully studied ... again ... something that is done in many fields and often leaves egg on ones face. These people ... and erroneous explanations ... shouldn't be the yardstick by which the Bible is measured. I have faith that any appearance of contradiction can be resolved as not ever having been one ... and I will do my part to explain what I can figure out through scholarship ... and hopefully, someone more knowledgable ... or who has knowledge in different areas ... can fill in the gaps I leave.

I would challenge skeptics, however, to automatically not jump to the conclusion that the explanation is intended to 'cover up for' the Bible ... that if the answer is incorrect ... that it the fault of the answerer's knowledge ... not the fault of the information not being present that would fully resolve the issue.

[Nowhere357]

SherBear:

... I apologize ...


I love you (maybe it's the avatar). :)



Concerning "contradictions", would you agree they indicate the Bible requires interpretation? More than just a literal translation?

[Sher]

Today @ 01:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=85343#post85343)
Nowhere357:

I love you (maybe it's the avatar). :)Sorry to burst your bubble ... but I don't really have those great wings :teeth: (but I knew you meant it in a non-flirtatious way)
Concerning &quot;contradictions&quot;, would you agree they indicate the Bible requires interpretation? More than just a literal translation? Hmmm ... kinda a loaded question ... but I'll bite and give a qualified yes. Qualified because it appears to indicte that ... but interpretation can be a mixed bag.

Interpretation from other scriptures ... coupled with understanding of socialogical and historical backgrounds ... not putting human "spin" on it ... Yes. I do think so ...

Interpretation from our various denominations and flawed human thinkings of what it "might" mean ... No. I definitately disagree.

I think much of the Bible is literal in the sense that God means what He says .... but ignoring that there is prose, analogy, parables, etc. is a dangerous interpretive practice ... IMO ... Jesus even said that He was using such and such as a parable for examples in teachings. We need to be diligent and study to understand the differences.

[Nowhere357]

SherBear:

Interpretation from our various denominations and flawed human thinkings of what it &quot;might&quot; mean ... No. I definitately disagree.

I agree with your entire post, except I'm not sure about this one.

How do we recognize "flawed human thinkings"?

[jsolis]

04-29-2003 @ 02:23 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81449#post81449)
Defenestrator:




That's funny, I count three &quot;errors.&quot; First he says &quot;I baptized none of you.&quot; Then in the same verse we find a horrible error that I'm suprised Paul didn't catch when he was obviously making up the Bible: &quot;except Crispus.&quot; You see that! First he says nobody and then he says Crispus. But wait! There's more! Then he says &quot;and Gaius.&quot; That's 2 errors in a row! Inerrant schminerrant. But here comes the coup d'etat, the Crown Royale, the King of Kings, the Error to end all Errors, the Cadillac of Contradictions: &quot;Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas.&quot; I suggest you read this paragraph again, lest you missed the in-your-face contradictions.

&quot;Nobody was baptized.&quot;
&quot;Except Crispus.&quot; &lt;= Error #1
&quot;And Gaius.&quot; &lt;= Error #2
&quot;Also, the house of Stephanas.&quot; &lt;= Error #3

How dare anybody pass this blatantly erronous book off as the Word of God! I am absolutely livid. I am vomitting with anger. I'm oozing with sarcasm.


Well, I must say, on your view of grammar, the word 'except' shall have to be stricken from every language on the planet. For never again will anyone be able to say something like, "I like none of Rush's music except 'Tom Sawyer', 'Spirit of Radio' (lest anyone say that I have absoutely no taste); oh, and I also like 'La Villa Strangiatto':

1. None of Rush's music is liked.
2. except 'Tom Sawyer' = error #1;
3. and 'Spirit of Radio' = error #2; and,
4. also 'La Villa Strangiatto' = errer #3.

And yet people talk just about like this everyday. HHHmmm.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Good point.

[Defenestrator]

jsolis:[/i]

Well, I must say, on your view of grammar, the word 'except' shall have to be stricken from every language on the planet. For never again will anyone be able to say something like, &quot;I like none of Rush's music except 'Tom Sawyer', 'Spirit of Radio' (lest anyone say that I have absoutely no taste); oh, and I also like 'La Villa Strangiatto':

1. None of Rush's music is liked.
2. except 'Tom Sawyer' = error #1;
3. and 'Spirit of Radio' = error #2; and,
4. also 'La Villa Strangiatto' = errer #3.

And yet people talk just about like this everyday. HHHmmm.

I think you have that backwards.

1. All of Rush's music is liked.
2. Except Rivendell.
3. And I think I'm going bald.
4. And, hmm, well, I can't think of another bad one.

[Dilton]

Skepticbud, you had many points in other threads where I read and partially or completely agreed with you, but you took things too hard on this one. There´s no significant error in that passage.

It is a bit confusing? Yes. Even if that is an error, it will not be that error that you make them change their mind about their beliefs.

[SlaveofChrist]

The point most skeptics are trying to make when searching for contradictions is that the Bible is not trustworthy. Whether that passage is a contradiction or not in no way makes the Bible less valid. Go find something important.

[Dilton]

Today @ 05:34 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91719#post91719)
SlaveofChrist:

The point most skeptics are trying to make when searching for contradictions is that the Bible is not trustworthy. Whether that passage is a contradiction or not in no way makes the Bible less valid. Go find something important.

You took the words out of my mouth. This discussion is completely pointless. No results for either Skepticbud or anyone.

[jsolis]

04-28-2003 @ 11:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80772#post80772)
skepticbud:

14. I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
15. so that no one would say you were baptized in my name.
16. .Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. (1st Corinthians 1:14-16, NASB)

Paul first says he baptized Crispus and Gaius and specifically said NO OTHERS.

Then, two verses later, corrects himself and adds a third party he baptized to the former and exclusive list of two.

Paul does not specifically state "NO OTHERS." That is your interpolation. You may wish to argue that use of "none" implies no others. And that might be true in a logical language where there is not the ambiguitity that natural languages admit of, but Paul wrote in Greek, a natural language. "None", then, is not free of ambiguity.

In order for there to be a contradition here, one of two conditions must hold. Either Paul must make in the form of categorical propositions both a universal affirmative and a particular negative, or he must assert both a universal negative and a particular affirmative. See Copi, Intro. To Logic, 4th, pp. 155-59. That is, he must assert something like either that
(a) "For all x, all x are P" AND "For all x, some x are not-P" or
(b) "For all x, all x is not-P" AND "For all x, some x are P".

In this passage then, what Paul must do, in order for a contradiction to exist here, is assert BOTH that

(c) "For all Corinthians, I baptized none of you at all" (not qualified by the exception of Crispus and Gaius), AND
(d) "For all Corinthians, I baptized some of you" (i.e., Crispus, Gaius, the household of Stephanus, maybe others).

Paul does not do this. The relation between the propositions
(e) "I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius," and
(f) "I baptized also the household of Stephanus,"
is not one of contradiction. The relation is such that (f) is an emendation--or completion--of (e). The emended--or completed--proposition is understood to be--and would have been understood by the Corinthians to have been--"I baptized none of you except Crispus, Gaius, the household of Stephanus and maybe some others."

And neither is this supposed inconsistency on Paul's part, the trouble for a lawyer that you assert, in a subsequent post, that it is. Even assuming that this is an inconsistency, in a court the witness is simply confronted with the evidence of his inconsistent testimony and then made either to deny or to explain himself. See, e.g., Texas Rules of Evidence, Art. VI, Rule 613 (http://www.courts.state.tx.us/publications/TRE/tre-98.htm#RULE613).

Additionally, whether or not Paul's testimony would have created the problem you think exists here depends upon what facts his testimony is intended to establish. If the issue were nothing more than whether Paul baptized anyone and, if so, how many, then there might be a problem. But the issue here is not whether Paul baptized anyone; in fact whether he did or not is entirely irrelevant to the issue he is addressing. For the isssue is whether being baptized by one person as opposed to another confers any special status on the baptizee. Paul's argument is that it does not; and his apparent uncertainty about who he may have baptized is consistent with his claim that who does the baptizing is unimportant.

[jsolis]

Today @ 03:33 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91626#post91626)
Defenestrator:



I think you have that backwards.

1. All of Rush's music is liked.
2. Except Rivendell.
3. And I think I'm going bald.
4. And, hmm, well, I can't think of another bad one.

Well, my friend, there is nothing like a relevant and intelligent reply. And this bit of nonsense is nothing like a relevant and intelligent reply.