A provable Bible contradiction

[Sparko]

John,

Didn't your mother tell you to stay away from insane trolls ?

Stop feeding Johnny, it isn't like he ever listens. His mind is firmly welded shut, and you are just encouraging his idiocy.

Jason

You are right, brother Jason. But Johnny is like an infected wound that you can't help but pick at the scab, even knowing you will make it bleed and fester more. It is like watching a train wreck in slow motion.


What would happen if Johnny and Squeakybro got locked in a thread together?

[Johnny Skeptic]

John Sparks wrote: When the only manuscripts we have have obvious copyist errors the translators will leave them in, since they want to be as true to the original language manuscript as possible. And in some cases it is impossible to say which entry is the error. But rest assured they know it is an error and no error makes any confusion in the core doctrines of Christianity or Judaism.

Johnny: Actually, the burden of proof is on you to reasonably prove that there are not any contradictions in the Bible. Why should anyone assume that there aren't any?

[Sparko]

John Sparks wrote: When the only manuscripts we have have obvious copyist errors the translators will leave them in, since they want to be as true to the original language manuscript as possible. And in some cases it is impossible to say which entry is the error. But rest assured they know it is an error and no error makes any confusion in the core doctrines of Christianity or Judaism.

Johnny: Actually, the burden of proof is on you to reasonably prove that there are not any contradictions in the Bible. Why should anyone assume that there aren't any?

Well Johnny, so far no one has shown any contradictions, just apparent ones that can be explained by copyist errors or misreading by people such as yourself.

So, yeah I claim there is no evidence that the originals have any contradictions.

My 'proof' is that no one has found any real contradictions in the copies we do have, as hard as people like you try to. But if you don't believe me, then I really don't care.

[Johnny Skeptic]

Johnny Skeptic wrote: John Sparks wrote: When the only manuscripts we have have obvious copyist errors the translators will leave them in, since they want to be as true to the original language manuscript as possible. And in some cases it is impossible to say which entry is the error. But rest assured they know it is an error and no error makes any confusion in the core doctrines of Christianity or Judaism.

Johnny replied: Actually, the burden of proof is on you to reasonably prove that there are not any contradictions in the Bible. Why should anyone assume that there aren't any?

John: Well Johnny, so far no one has shown any contradictions, just apparent ones that can be explained by copyist errors or misreading by people such as yourself. So, yeah I claim there is no evidence that the originals have any contradictions.

My 'proof' is that no one has found any real contradictions in the copies we do have, as hard as people like you try to. But if you don't believe me, then I really don't care.

Johnny: This is not really your argument at all. Typical of other fundamentalist Christians your real argument is that you assume that you know the nature of God, leading to your conclusions that that he would not allow any contradictions to appear in the originals, and that he would not allow anything to appear in copies that would indicate anything other than copyist errors.

What good is a book without contradtions if hundreds of millions of people die over many centuries without every having read it? By the same token, what good is a cure for cancer if generations of people with cancer never have access to the cure?

Regarding "My 'proof' is that no one has found any real contradictions in the copies," that is no proof at all, certainly not any more proof than in other writings, religous or secular, in which contradictions cannot be reasonably proven. He who asserts no contradictions must reasonably prove that there are not any contradictions. Many testimonies given in court trials that are found to be free of contradictions are actually lies.




signature:
This signature left intentionally blank.




JohnSparks
View Public Profile
Send a private message to JohnSparks
Send Email to JohnSparks
Visit JohnSparks's homepage!
Find all posts by JohnSparks
Challenge JohnSparks in the Arcade
View JohnSparks's Friends
View JohnSparks's Blogs

[Sparko]

You are getting sloppy in your cut and pastes there Johnny.

I claim there is no evidence of life on the moon. Now do I have to prove that to you by showing you every square inch of the moon or can I claim that unless someone shows me life on the moon, there is no evidence of it?

If I claim there is no evidence for any contradiction in the original manuscripts the same thing holds. Unless you or someone else can show me ANY clear contradiction that is not an obvious error in copy, translation, or your understanding, then there is NO evidence of contradiction in the originals. Ipso Facto. By definition. And if you do find a contradiction in the copies, then it is only an indication that the originals might have the error in them too. Not proof.

neener, neener, neener.

Again, believe or don't. No skin off my nose.

[jason]

Johnny: Actually, the burden of proof is on you to reasonably prove that there are not any contradictions in the Bible. Why should anyone assume that there aren't any?

I trust you will take everyone to task in future who says, "You need to prove God's existence, the non-existence of God is the default position".

Would you be that consistent I wonder ?

Actually, on this point, given the number of supposed contradictions and how hard skeptics have to work to invent them, the bible has easily earned the benifit of the doubt against the claim of the skeptic.

Jason

[Johnny Skeptic]

John Sparks wrote: I claim there is no evidence of life on the moon. Now do I have to prove that to you by showing you every square inch of the moon or can I claim that unless someone shows me life on the moon, there is no evidence of it?

Johnny: If you claimed that there is no evidence that there is life on the moon and it turned out that you were wrong, would that bother you? I doubt. A lot of people certainly would be excited. If it turned out that the Bible contradicts itself in a number of places would that bother you? I think that it would. What is the difference between the two? The difference is that if the Bible contradicts itself in a number of places, and if the contradictions were proven not to be copyists errors, your fundamentalist Chrisitian presuppositionalism would fly right out of the window.

John: If I claim there is no evidence for any contradiction in the original manuscripts the same thing holds. Unless you or someone else can show me ANY clear contradiction that is not an obvious error in copy, translation, or your understanding, then there is NO evidence of contradiction in the originals. Ipso Facto. By definition. And if you do find a contradiction in the copies, then it is only an indication that the originals might have the error in them too. Not proof.

Johnny: It is interesting that you mentioned proof. You in fact do not have any proof at all, at least not the kind of proof that matters the most. The only proof that would be of any tangible value to you whatsoever would be if Jesus returns to earth. Otherwise, the Devils and his demons are still loose on earth, we still have sickness, hunger, natural disasters etc., and no Christian is enjoying living in the city of New Jerusalem. Here we are two millennia after the time of Jesus, and possibly many more millennia to come, and all that you have is hope, nothing more.

When is Jesus coming back? What is he waiting for. Matthew 24:14 says "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." Is the verse not a contradiction? The gospel of the kingdom has in fact been preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations.

[Johnny Skeptic]

Jason wrote: I trust you (Johnny Skeptic) will take everyone to task in future who says, "You need to prove God's existence, the non-existence of God is the default position."

Johnny: Not at all. As an agnostic, I don't have a default position one way or the other.

Jason: Would you be that consistent I wonder? Actually, on this point, given the number of supposed contradictions and how hard skeptics have to work to invent them, the Bible has easily earned the benifit of the doubt against the claim of the skeptic.

Johnny: It is difficult to prove a Bible contradiction to the satisfaction of fundamentalist Christians. I knew that when I opened this thread, but I just wanted to give it a try. The lack of provable Bible contradictions to the satisfaction of fundamentalist Christians is not major evidence, or even minor evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, especially to non-Christians.

It is not just a question of proof. It is also a question of what is probable. Christians frequently use the probability argument when called upon to prove that Jesus rose from the dead. It is probable that a loving and wise God would inspire wriitngs that are clear and discourage dissent, not writings that encourage dissent. The two different accounts for the death of Judas is a good example. The accounts encourage dissent, and if the accounts are true, they could easily have been written in a way that would have discouraged dissent. A few simple answers to a few simple questions would have gone a long way towards discouraging dissent. The fact that we don't have many of the answers that we need indicates a God that does not exist or a god who for some strange and undisclosed reason prefers to hide for millennia, only to one day give up his shyness.

[Sparko]

John Sparks wrote: I claim there is no evidence of life on the moon. Now do I have to prove that to you by showing you every square inch of the moon or can I claim that unless someone shows me life on the moon, there is no evidence of it?

Johnny: If you claimed that there is no evidence that there is life on the moon and it turned out that you were wrong, would that bother you? I doubt. A lot of people certainly would be excited. If it turned out that the Bible contradicts itself in a number of places would that bother you? I think that it would. What is the difference between the two? The difference is that if the Bible contradicts itself in a number of places, and if the contradictions were proven not to be copyists errors, your fundamentalist Chrisitian presuppositionalism would fly right out of the window.

John: If I claim there is no evidence for any contradiction in the original manuscripts the same thing holds. Unless you or someone else can show me ANY clear contradiction that is not an obvious error in copy, translation, or your understanding, then there is NO evidence of contradiction in the originals. Ipso Facto. By definition. And if you do find a contradiction in the copies, then it is only an indication that the originals might have the error in them too. Not proof.

Johnny: It is interesting that you mentioned proof. You in fact do not have any proof at all, at least not the kind of proof that matters the most. The only proof that would be of any tangible value to you whatsoever would be if Jesus returns to earth. Otherwise, the Devils and his demons are still loose on earth, we still have sickness, hunger, natural disasters etc., and no Christian is enjoying living in the city of New Jerusalem. Here we are two millennia after the time of Jesus, and possibly many more millennia to come, and all that you have is hope, nothing more.

Well the difference is that there IS good evidence for the bible being true and Jesus having lived and been resurrected. Whether you accept it, is another matter. So you can't make the claim that there is no evidence for God or Jesus having resurrected. I can, on the other hand make the claim that there is no evidence for life on the moon.

Now as far as contradictions go, that is a provable and testable scenario. All you have to do is come up with one clear contradiction that can't be explained by a copyist error, or a mis reading on your part. So far you haven't managed to do that.

When is Jesus coming back? What is he waiting for. Matthew 24:14 says "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." Is the verse not a contradiction? The gospel of the kingdom has in fact been preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations.

1. There is no contradiction. A contradiction would be if there were two opposite claims made that contradicted each other.

2. Have you checked in every spot on earth to make sure that the gospel has been preached there? If so, why did you bring up the question of what about the poor native who never heard of Jesus in a prior thread?

3. It doesn't say, "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come, immediately thereafter." - basically Jesus was only saying that the gospel will be preached in all the world before the end comes. There is no worry about some place being left out.

[Didymus]

Johnny: Not at all. As an agnostic, I don't have a default position one way or the other.

Your website has you locked in a whole set of false assertions, you have no choice but to be a hostile fundy "skeptic".

Johnny: It is difficult to prove a Bible contradiction to the satisfaction of fundamentalist Christians. I knew that when I opened this thread, but I just wanted to give it a try. The lack of provable Bible contradictions to the satisfaction of fundamentalist Christians is not major evidence, or even minor evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, especially to non-Christians.

You have been refuted by me, a non-fundamentalist Christian.

The truth is neither conservative, or liberal, or evangelical, or Angelican - Church of England, the truth is the truth.

Pack it in, and take your negative mind set back to Infidels.org.

[jason]

Johnny: It is difficult to prove a Bible contradiction to the satisfaction of fundamentalist Christians. I knew that when I opened this thread, but I just wanted to give it a try.

It is a difficult to prove to a skeptic that a contradiction does not exist when they insist it does. As you aptly demonstrate. Its cute the way you need to resort to abuse by labelling those who see your nonsense for what it is a fundementalist.

It is probable that a loving and wise God would inspire wriitngs that are clea and discourage dissent, not writings that encourage dissent.

Given the lengths you need to go too and the contortions you twist yourself into to invent contradictions, i'm quite sure he did. Anybody can abuse a text to generate a contradiction if they desperately need to find one badly enough.

The fact that we don't have many of the answers that we need indicates a God that does not exist or a god who for some strange and undisclosed reason prefers to hide for millennia, only to one day give up his shyness.

That we we have the dissent like we do in the form you bring to the table is only evidence of the intrasigence of human beings and thier desperate desire to invent any excuse to deal with truth.

After all, aren't you the one who resorted to suggesting the Joseph of Arimatheia was mentally incompetent as a way to get around a thorny issue.

All your constant writing does Johnny is convince me of the truth of Christ's message, because the ridiculous lengths you are forced to go to in order to make a case show that your claims are so much fluff.

Jason

[jason]

Angelican - Church of England, the truth is the truth.

Umm ... Anglican, there is nothing Angelic about the Church of England. Sadly.

And I am an Anglican, I know of what I speak.

Jason

[Johnny Skeptic]

Message to Jason: Are you Jason Gastrich?

[jason]

Message to Jason: Are you Jason Gastrich?

No I am not.

But if you looked at my profile you could have discovered that for yourself.

Jason

[Johnny Skeptic]

Message to Jason: I can't prove to your satisfaction that the Bible contains contradictions, but you can't prove to my satisfaction that the Bible does not contain falsehoods. The issue of possible falsehoods is much more important than the issue of possible contradictions.