Chaos, Evolution & Intelligent Design: A Discussion

[Pseudonym]

I would like to see a compelling contradiction, given that it seems common knowledge that the Bible is teeming with them. A recently saw a Muslim website claiming as many as 4,500 - or was it 45,000? It was a ridiculous figure, and the 'examples' provided are easily shown to be false.

 

[Canute]

Does it matter whether there are contradictions in the Bible? I suppose to someone who wants to believe that it is the direct word of God it matters. But I thought that few people take this line anymore. I can't see that it matters.

The Bible was written by many different people at many different times and it covers a huge range of issues and events. If it didn't contain any contradictions it would look suspiciously like a fabrication, (for the same reason too perfect an alibi in criminal investigations, or a too closely shared story between suspects, can be a sign of fabrication).

 

[Pseudonym]

Canute - Would you explain how you believe the Bible could have been 'fabricated'? Do you mean to say it was written centuries after it claims to be written?

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Pseudonym
Canute - Would you explain how you believe the Bible could have been 'fabricated'? Do you mean to say it was written centuries after it claims to be written?

What I meant was that if it was a collection of genuine first-hand individual recollections, or handed down accounts of Jesus etc., then one would expect it to contain contradictions. However if it was cooked up as a piece of fiction designed to attract followers then those contradictions would have been sorted out as it was written.

I was suggesting that the fact that it contains contradictions makes it more likely to be a account of history than a piece of complete fiction.

Therefore the argument that the Bible is 'false' because it contains contradictions seems very weak. I feel the Christians are over defensive about these issues. Why not just say 'so what' when someone points out a contradiction?

Imo the trouble started when the Bible, quite obviously written by human beings, came to be seen as written by God. This was claiming too much, and it opened the door to criticism based on the contradictions. In fact it would be very odd if it did not contain contradictions. Shouldn't we just accept that it's a book containing a lot of truth and wisdom, as well as some muddled nonsense, not a letter from God.

 

[FZ+]

What I meant was that if it was a collection of genuine first-hand individual recollections, or handed down accounts of Jesus etc., then one would expect it to contain contradictions. However if it was cooked up as a piece of fiction designed to attract followers then those contradictions would have been sorted out as it was written.

I doubt even the strongest and most aggressive antitheists suggest such a cynical attitude of changing the bible. Rather, the abundance of contradictions may be used to show the bible as something indistinguishible from other such sources, and unworthy as a source of absolute truth.

 

[Canute]

There is nothing that is not a source of absolute truth.

Anyway, my point was only that the fact that the Bible contains contradictions tells us nothing about whether it contains any truth. I fail to see what is cynical about this view.

 

[TENYEARS]

The bible contains what you want or need it to contain until you see what it really does contain. In either case, do you think you can port what you have found to the mind of another human being? This seems like one of those bad jokes which is ment to keep you doing what you are already doing instead of ...

 

[FZ+]

Anyway, my point was only that the fact that the Bible contains contradictions tells us nothing about whether it contains any truth. I fail to see what is cynical about this view.

You misunderstand me. I mean that most atheists do not use the argument that because there are contradictions, the bible must be wrong in its entirity. It is accepted that it must contain truth. Rather, the prescence of contradictions is used to counter the far extremists, who insist that biblical writ is to be taken as literal, without skepticism, and elevated beyond rationalism and understanding.

The attitude of atheists is that the bible is no more profound than Marx, no more beautiful than Blake, no more illuminating than Voltaire... The prescence of contradictions, flaws and so on is a reminder, ultimately, that it is still a human book, on a human point of view. And those humans that wrote it are no more holy, no more capable of wisdom than the human today that is reading, and thinking.

 

[TENYEARS]

FZ, excellent point, the key word being capable. Every human being on the face of the planet is capble of understanding. The question is have they? Do they? Will they? There are different levels of understanding, for example. I do not consider that confucious was ever enlightened for the words which were attributed to him. It does not mean he was not, but according to what was brought down, I would say no. To compare his words with the Jesus or some other biblical writers is like comparing a drop of water to the ocean. Yet I would say buddism, Toaism, the American Indians(black elk), South american native understanding, etc... all the equal to the bible all in their purest points. Was he capable yes. Did he do it? From the proof I would say no. So one would have to measure the depth of the underlying statements in order to find the depth of the wisdom, but that would require the observer to have gone to that level to understand the level. The observer may also find non relative wisdom in the expression of the others wisdom even if it is not propagated from that level. This would be reading into the expression, which may or may not been have intended from that point of view.

 

[Canute]

FZ+

I agree with what you said. The contradictions only matter to hardliners on either side. (Although I think the atheist view you describe is rather going to the other extreme, but it doesn't matter).

 

[Pseudonym]

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God." The Bible claims to have a supernatural source. It elsewhere claims that God is perfect. It follows that His word should at the very least agree with itself.

If then the Bible contains contradictions, it is rendered a book written by liars and is no source of supernatural truth.

This is why the issue of contradictions is important. If the Bible claims to be accurate and is not, why should we trust it? (although I haven't yet seen anything to suggest it isn't accurate)

 

[TENYEARS]

The bible is accurate in it's expression of the wisdom of truth. Who went here and ate what and when is irrelevant. The words came from individuals who transcended their humanity into a state beyond their skin. In this experience of connectedness, wisdom comes. You become a witness to the universe, sometimes visions sometimes just pure knowing and sometimes maybe what is called miracles. These are not miracles, but an expresion of the nature of reality. To a person who does not see the truth in the bible, they will not see the truth in physics either and visa versa. This I know and I do not believe. To anyone which knows anything this would become obvious. Words words words, all meaningless words.