Unwashed Village
General Discussion => Unwashed Village => Topic started by: Solwyn on September 07, 2007, 07:13:20 PM
-
No not the [adult swim] game.
I promised Brug I'd move this to another thread and finally got around to doing the research, so here goes (anyone else feel free to jump in here but keep in mind our debate is academic and theological in nature, so rhetorical fallacy will be mocked).
Potentially, my assertion is, (for the most part) as the catholic church teaches...
The holy books of the bible are divinely inspired, as in God worked through imperfect servants as imperfect tools to impart His message. Therefore the message must be judged by the spirit, rather than the letter of the words. Various forms of copying, editing, and translating into various languages affect the letter of the law. Additionally, the bible uses extensive parable to explain impossible situations to human minds, and therefore contains stories and metaphors that should not be taken literally. Biblical contradictions exist, following the Rule of Contradictions, but these are not by any means an issue to be taken into account to the validity of the bible, they are proof that the bible is written and transcribed by imperfect authors.
SO:
The following "alleged" contradiction is not truly a contradiction due to the law of contradictions.
The two thieves reviled Christ. (Matthew 27:44 & Mark 15:32) Only one of the thieves reviled Christ. Luke 23:39-40.
The reason is because two witnesses corroborate that they saw two thieves, and a third confirms only one. For the purpose of legal documentation, this would not be a contradiction, as only a testament that a person is in another place counts as a contradiction (alibi).
The following contradiction would, from an academic standpoint, be verifiable.
(Matthew 10:10) Jesus instructed them not to take a staff, not to wear sandals. (Mark 6:8-9) Jesus instructed his disciples to wear sandals and take a staff on their journey.
Matthew states that Jesus SPECIFICALLY told them not to take a staff or sandals. Mark states that Jesus SPECIFICALLY told them TO take a staff and sandals. These two testimonies contradict each other. In a court case, you'd say that Jesus must have specifically mentioned both things, because two people remember that. But they differ one whether he asserted to take them or not.
I don't see this as a crisis of faith, as by my interperetation, details such as these are only important for story telling and the flow of the parable. But I think they prove that biblical inerrancy is problematic, as the literal word is contradictory. But I feel like the spirit is still there.
Discuss!
-
Sorry man. As I mentioned in the other thread I've semi-retired from the debate forums for now. So we'll just have to agree to disagree. :)
-
I win! One to nuthin!
-
So... I can use the "Law of Contradictions" to validate my contradictions.
*nods*
I like that.
-
Thanks Aristotle!
"one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time".
-
"It is unbecoming for young men to utter maxims."
-
"Bashfulness is an ornament to youth, but a reproach to old age."
Aristotle
-
“The young are permanently in a state resembling intoxication.”
-
"Education is the best provision for old age."
-
"The word "genius" isn't applicable in football. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein."
So sue me...
-
hahah
Are we switching to sports quotes?
In that case, "I've had to overcome a lot of diversity."
-
"Well, that was a cliff-dweller."
-
I don't think either one of you are giving 110% anymore.
On a side note, the whole 110% thing is why most athletes are athletes instead of, say, proving the existence of dark matter and forming principles of string theory. That whole non-grasp of basic math skills gets in the way.
-
"Ninety percent of the game is half mental."
-
"If you don't dissagree with me, how will I know I'm right?"
-
this doesn't feel like a fight. =(
-
Solwyn you idiot! You couldn't fight your way out of a paper bag with a nuclear detonator and a pencil! And besides, you smell funny!
There... better?
-
I'll steer clear of the age jokes, as they're getting passé in this thread alone. I'd go racial but as honkey racial epithets (cracker) get old fast, we're goin' national (on a heritage basis anyway).
Bluecross you vodka-swilling, slav-oppressing, nazi sympathizing neo-nordic asshat! You couldn't formulate a cogent response if you had an alcohol-powered, monkey-navigated, cogent-response-generating computer!
How's that Sylvie?
-
I like where this thread is going
XD
-
How's that Sylvie?
Almost perfect - have either one of you started crying yet?
As to the bible stuff....I wish I could disagree with anything you said, so that we could fight it out as well.
Speaking of the bible - my daughter is in a Catholic School now, and she needs a holy bible for religious studies. I have bibles galore in my house ((I collect them)) but that I know of I do not own a 'catholic' holy bible...does anyone know if this is even a different bible?
Or will any holy bible do?
Inquiring minds need to know! :book2:
-
Bluecross you vodka-swilling, slav-oppressing, nazi sympathizing neo-nordic asshat! You couldn't formulate a cogent response if you had an alcohol-powered, monkey-navigated, cogent-response-generating computer!
Hahahahhaaahahahahaaaa! (adopt French accent now...) Imbécile!
Everyone knows that my monkey died last year!
-
There's a lot of discussion around the Reformation about the contradictions in the Bible. tho mostly centred around the idea of Jesus' Divinity and Humanity but also draws on a lot of the contradictions in the Bible.
the jist of it was, if i remember correctly, that because there was a lot of travelling, obviously the details got skewed but we shouldnt nitpick anyways cause that could lead to even more factioning within the protestants or lead to the unnecessary focus over one detail over another which could lead to an unhealthy obsession over that detail which is what the Catholics do, drawing on examples from communion and other things which i cant remember just now.
BC: I'm sorry your monkey died :P
-
Sylvie: Catholics in the states tend to use the "new american bible." If you want to pick one up, you can get a paperbound study version for under 10 bucks these days in most places that sell bibles. Catholics don't reject any bible in particular but I'd steer clear of the KJV (as in King James Version) if you can, unless you want your kid to get it thrown at her. When I went through religious classes I used a Peshitta version, which is Robert T. Lamsa's translation from the aramaic one that Assyrian orthodox and other guys use, the nuns were pretty cool with it, they liked reading a lot of it.
BC: Well it doesn't have to be your monkey. You... guy.
Sweetpea: Well there have been a lot of changes in the church, and one of the biggest ones was the "counter-reformation" where the church had a rare (in the early days) moment of open-mindedness to figure out why so many people were running the other way. Vatican II changed a lot about the way Catholics look at the bible, and one of the biggest additions was the Lumen Gentium. I've pasted it in these forums before but it's more relevant this time so I'll paste it again.
All men are called to be part of this catholic unity of the people of God which in promoting universal peace presages it. And there belong to or are related to it in various ways, the Catholic faithful, all who believe in Christ, and indeed the whole of mankind, for all men are called by the grace of God to salvation.
Basically, the wordy vatican version of "it's all good."
-
So since you didn't do a personal attack on me in your last post, I win, right?
(we can let SlyveeBee vote to break ties)
-
I called you a guy.
YOU GOT SERRRRV'D.
Try not to let it sting to bad, yo.
-
yes i was waiting to see if anyone would bring up the counter-reformation :)
its like they had a smoke, chilled out a bit but when they came down from the high, freaked out and said 'nope, we dont like it anymore, we've changed our minds back!'
ah Catholics..gotta love them.
-
You don't have to love us. You have to fear us.
No not really. Unfortunately for catholics (and most organized religions) the most vocal people are the minority. A majority of catholics
1) Drink, smoke, and act like regular humans.
2) Liked the movie Dogma.
3) Use contraceptives.
and
4) Enjoy the irony of traditional faith.
The ones that picket abortion clinics make up about 2% of the total, but they're always there and always very loud.
Oh, and BC is thin-wristed.
-
ah yes the majority.
Unfornately for me, the majority of the people in the cult i grew up in are......well people in a cult really.....bit brainwashed.
i was one of the minority who remembered they had a brain and went to find out stuff for themselves. Sometimes being the minority is good :)
-
I was doing OK until you played the 'thin-wristed' card.
:wreck:
When one person sinks to such slimy depths to which you have personally plumbed then the second person really wins despite being emotionally scarred for however many months are remaining of his twilight years, or possible even darkened days.
Now I suppose you'll call in the Grammar Cops.
-
Nah, I'm one of them, we don't work during the normal parts of the day...
Only when you least expect it.
-
No one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition.
It always comes down to the Spanish, doesn't it...
-
Only if we're talking about Franco.
-
I declare me the winner.
-
Did you remember to declare that at customs?
They're a real stickler for that sort of thing
-
I declare me the un-not-anti-counter-winner.
-
You left out 'neg-'
-
=Lifts the rascism bat=
=slowly lowers the rascism bat=
Hmm... just in case... O.o
-
*pummels The Sysman back to the Stone Age*
OK, so it's not original.
But it is deserved.
-
Bombo!
-
OK......
(http://www.bombosmd.com.ar/Imagenes/bombopartes.jpg)
-
Mambo!?
-
So that's what Carson was talking about all those years.
-
Lord Justice Bowen:
The rain it raineth on the just,
and also on the unjust fella.
but chiefly on the just, because
the unjust hath the just's umbrella.
-
The following "alleged" contradiction is not truly a contradiction due to the law of contradictions.
The two thieves reviled Christ. (Matthew 27:44 & Mark 15:32) Only one of the thieves reviled Christ. Luke 23:39-40.
The reason is because two witnesses corroborate that they saw two thieves, and a third confirms only one. For the purpose of legal documentation, this would not be a contradiction, as only a testament that a person is in another place counts as a contradiction (alibi).
I have to disagree with you here, Sol. I think this is still a contradiction according to the law of contradictions due to the presence of the word "only" in the quote from Luke. If the quote read,
One of the thieves reviled Christ.
Then I would agree with your analysis; Luke would be confirming that at least one thief reviled Christ, without commentary on the others. However, the presence of the word 'only' coupled with the plurality of 'thieves' indicates that Luke is declaring that more than one thief was present, but that no more than one reviled Christ; thus, at least one thief was present that did not revile Christ. It's a contradiction in the same way as your second quote; Matthew and Mark claim that Thief #2 reviled Christ, and Luke expressly claims that he did not.
-
I would agree with you if it were not for the fact we are using a non-historical or non-corroborative method of examination.
Here's Matthew 27 according to my bible (NAB)
44:The revolutionaries who were crucified with him also kept abusing him in the same way.
Here's Mark 15:
Let the Messiah, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross that we may see and believe." Those who were crucified with him also kept abusing him
Here's Luke 23:
39 Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, "Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us."
40 The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, "Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation?
So it seems to me that the issue is not that Luke specifically mentioned it, it's that the other two (Mark and Matthew) did not specify, they just said "those who were crucified with him." According to the legal perspective, the truth would be that two witnesses claim everyone (in this case it doesn't show number just all inclusive words) reviled him but one witness was more specific in that one disagreed with another, which is not a direct contradiction but rather a disagreement in specificity of accounts. In a non-historical perspective, you'd just go back and get more specific testimony from both other witnesses. But in this case, since it's historical we take the more specific account to be the most likely to be accurate but also take into consideration the number of witnesses, and assume that most of them reviled jesus but there's a chance one spoke against the others.
The reason is because the other witnesses gave less specific testimony, not saying when or how they saw everyone abusing Jesus. This means that they could have witnessed the first half of the event, and missed the part where someone rebuked them, or their vantage point didn't allow them to see/hear it.
My personal opinion, after all the legalese and examination, is that it doesn't really matter, you're supposed to make up your own mind either way. But the definition of a contradiction is tricky in this situation because of the differing levels of specificity.
-
Well, it's lucky that we have the Bible in its original English so there's never any question about translation issues.
-
Uhh, I thought everyone knew that God translated it.
-
It makes more sense when you eat it.
-
(http://www.steaktenderizer.com/images/barbecue_bible_lg.jpg)
-
Darn it, now I am hungry.
-
As the bible says, "Unless you speak ancient Aramaic... fuck you!"