Jinx's criteria for a bible contradiction

[DivineOb]

On his blog, Jinx states the following

If you asked John Kerry his answer to the question, well... Judge for yourself from his statements in the second debate (as found on Wizbang's blog and Debates.org:




"Well, let me tell you straight up: I've never changed my mind about Iraq. I do believe Saddam Hussein was a threat. I always believed he was a threat. Believed it in 1998 when Clinton was president. I wanted to give Clinton the power to use force if necessary."


Alright. That's pretty clear. Saddam was a threat, Kerry always believed he was, and he would've authorized Clinton using force to get rid of Saddam. However, just a few statements later, Kerry says this about Iran:



"I don't think you can just rely on U.N. sanctions, Randee. But you're absolutely correct, it is a threat, it's a huge threat.

And what's interesting is, it's a threat that has grown while the president has been preoccupied with Iraq, where there wasn't a threat.


So within a matter of a few minutes, Kerry apparently changes his mind about Iraq. According to that statement, he believes there wasn't a threat in Iraq. These statements simply CANNOT BE RECONCILED!!! No excuse of "nuances" (a word I've heard to dismiss Kerry's constant contradictions) will ever reconcile them. Kerry is a flip-flopper and he would be a greater danger to this country than the liberals claim President Bush is now. It's so obvious. I wish more people would admit it.

Note the following interesting facts

1) Jinx has a standard by which he can state that two seemingly contradictory statements "simply CANNOT BE RECONCILED!!!"
2) It is possible for someone to state one thing, and then state another entirely contradictory message a few minutes later

Given that I can think of bible passages which fit the exact pattern of Kerry's supposed "unRECONCILABLE!!!" statements, and which (apparently) cannot be explained by the excuse of "well, obviously one wouldn't contradict oneself so close together," shouldn't we expect Jinx to find the bible errant?

I would expect not, but it is interesting to note his confusion...

[GakuseiDon]

Looks like you're going for a Steve Carr type post there. If so, you just need to include a few more "Surely"s and "Perhaps". Also, I'm afraid your question related to the topic you are raising - if you want to do a "Carr" post, the question should be only vaguely related.

How is Jinx confused? What confusion are you noting?

[Intelligitimate]

The methods of the inerrantist would make any book free from error. Using their own methods, it would be trivial to show that the Book of Mormon or the Qu'ran is free from contradiction, and therefor, divinely inspired.

Even direct, undeniable errors are simply said to be copying errors, with the autograph copy being the only one free from error, and it conveniently can't be inspected since it has long ago been destroyed. It's a moving goalpost with no way to possibly show anything contradicts anything else.

It’s a stupid child’s game that should make any adult ashamed of themselves.

[Nicholas]

Although it could just be one of those "Exagerations."

[AtheistArchon]

- Is Jinx actually an inerrantist? Or is he a literallist? There's a difference of course. But I'm not sure he's either one.

[stevencarrwork]

The methods of the inerrantist would make any book free from error. Using their own methods, it would be trivial to show that the Book of Mormon or the Qu'ran is free from contradiction, and therefor, divinely inspired.

Don't worry, apologists are aware of the danger 'On Contradictions and Resolutions' -
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/mormcont.html JP Holding writes 'We should take caution in approaching difficulties in the Mormon texts, lest we undercut our own efforts.'

Holding is well aware of the fact that his apologetic methods can whitewash anything, so advises readers accordingly.

Of course, apologists would simply say that Kerry thought Saddam was a threat, but Iraq was not, and point out that Saddam and Iraq are two different things. A person is not a country. Saddam might be a threat, by promoting terrorism, but the country of Iraq was not a threat as it could not invade America.

[jpholding]

Don't worry, apologists are aware of the danger 'On Contradictions and Resolutions' -
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/mormcont.html JP Holding writes 'We should take caution in approaching difficulties in the Mormon texts, lest we undercut our own efforts.'

Holding is well aware of the fact that his apologetic methods can whitewash anything, so advises readers accordingly.

In the hands of the ignoant who freely decontextualize, that's quite correct Stevie Weevie. But then again, being Conextually Informed has never been a strong point of yours, has it?

Maybe you can explain to us about this one:

*****
Did he believe all churches were wrong, or not? In a personal account Smith claims:

... by Searching the Scriptures I found that mankind did not come unto the Lord but they had apostatised from the true and living faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the new testament...

In the "canonical" account, however, Smith says:

My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right.., for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong... (Pearl of Great Price)

This is extremely hard to reconcile by any account. If this were a Biblical issue one might suggest that the second version is some sort of negation idiom, but to do so one would have to demonstrate (as we did in the linked article) that such idiomatic usages appear in literature contemporary to Smith (19th century American lit). Otherwise no resolution presents itself.
******
So can you give us some examples of negation idioms from 19th century rural America? I knew we could count on you, you old sun dog.

By the way, kudos on keeping up with my restructured addressed, though I'd have expected no less from my most ardent reader and fan.

[Intelligitimate]

I don't see the contradiction. Is the contradiction supposed to be that he either searched the scriptures and found all churches wrong, or that he discovered it after inquiring to the Lord?