Originally posted by rogue06
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Ancient Sources: History and Theology.
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
Her bluff has already been called. I conceded for the sake of argument every supposed "contradiction" she cares to name and asked if she would be willing to accept what's left as truthful and accurate. Notice that she has yet to respond directly to this, meaning that her "But- but the contradictions!" routine is nothing but an empty rationalization.
You wrote in post #7:
"I also notice you didn't care to address this challenge: For sake of argument, let's generously concede this point and toss out every supposed "contradiction". Are you willing, then, to accept what remains as truthful and accurate?"
And at post #8 I gave my answer "Insofar as the texts mention real places and real historical figures, in that respect the texts may be considered correct. Everything else is questionable."
All this bluster and affectation of indignation is clear indication you cannot explain these specific contradictions that I cited from your texts. Hence your feeble attempts to belittle your correspondent.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
"The Chicago Statement was signed by nearly 300 noted evangelical scholars, including James Boice, Norman L. Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J. I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R. C. Sproul, and John Wenham."
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
That is not an academic source.
- 1 like
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
- 1 like
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostWhile some "contradictions" are more significant than others, many are indeed nothing burgers and the result of what typically happens when different people describe the same event.[/quote
The fact of the matter is, that it often depends on the audience and what the person providing the account wants to emphasize. Just like what we see today.
For instance, the following describe the exact same thing. If someone were to ask "Bob" if they ever went over to see "Steve's" new house and got one of the following
Yeah. I went over there Saturday and stayed over there for about three hours
Last weekend, after work, I went past the park and picked up Carol and went over there. He was just walking back up his driveway after getting his mail
I went this past weekend. You wouldn't believe the traffic. It was like everybody and their brother was taking their dog to the park. And then there was a fend-bender by the square and it took us three lights to get through but we finally made it
All three describe the exact same thing. All provide different details.
Only the second one mentions Carol going as well, but the third indicates it with the use of "us" and "we." The first was a barebones recount and left that detail out but does not contradict that more than one person went to Steve's.
A similar thing can be seen about exactly how many women went to the tomb after Jesus' crucifixion.
Matthew, gives a very brief account seemingly eager to get on to the Great Commission. Both he and Mark mention Mary Magdalene as going. They also mention a second Mary, who is described differently, likely because Matthew's audience may have been familiar with who she was so "the other Mary" sufficed. Mark, OTOH, might have wanted to be sure they understood which Mary so he adds "the mother of James" into the descriptor and also notes that Salome was there as well. Nobody else mentions Salome, but that could be due to Mark's audience knowing Salome or simply that she doesn't play much of a role later on so no need to mention her and therefore explain who she is. Keep in mind both paper and ink were expensive and not to be wasted. And while John only mentions Mary Magdalene, it is clear she was not alone because she uses the term "we" when describing events. So for whatever reason John wanted the spotlight on her.
A nice try but now tell us all how many young men/angels were present and why each supposed eye-witness account of this encounter is different?- Matthew tells us Mary Magdalen and the “other Mary” went to the tomb, an earthquake occurs, then one angel descends from heaven, this entity rolls away the stone, and then proceeds to sit on it.
- Mark tells us that three women {Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother James, and Salome] look up to see the stone has been moved, enter the tomb to find one young man in it
- Luke just writes about “the women” who also find that the stone had been moved. They also go inside the tomb to find it empty and suddenly TWO young men appear beside them.
- John has Mary Magdalene finding the stone has been moved running back to tell Simon Peter and the other disciple whom Jesus loved. Peter and the other disciple run to the tomb. The other disciple gets there first. Simon Peter comes into the tomb to see the wrappings rolled up in a corner of the tomb [a place by itself]. The two disciples then go home. Meanwhile Mary stays outside the tomb weeping when she sees two angels sitting where the body should have been
How many young men/angels were there? And why do the Synoptics not mention Simon Peter and the other disciple's presence?
Kindly also explain why these four [alleged] eye-witnesses could not agree on when the interrogation by Pilate took place. You can also explain how they managed to the Praetorium and where they hid in order to overhear the exchange. You can also tell us how two individuals [one at least an artisanal fisherman] from a Galilean village managed to be fluent in Greek [or Latin] given that Pilate would not have spoken Aramaic
You can also explain the [at least] ten year discrepancy between Matthew’s birth narrative and that of Luke.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostThe examples I gave are not trivial. Those texts contradict one another in narrative details and [for the birth narratives] in chronology.
If you cannot provide sources, admit it.
Which is nothing but a somewhat feeble excuse vainly attempting to explain away these contradictions within the texts. It is also flagrantly disregards much of what we know of extant ancient literary sources and how those were compiled.
I would also add that regardless of how much you may indeed "note" these things, if you cannot provide some serious academic evidence in support of your your comments, then they really count for very little
.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
As for your supposed "contradictions", they are trivial to resolve and any number of essays and books have done so
If you cannot provide sources, admit it.
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostI will, however, note that what is commonly regarded as supposed "contradictions" in the Bible are generally down to differences in writing conventions where ancient writers did not write with the same precision as is often demanded today
I would also add that regardless of how much you may indeed "note" these things, if you cannot provide some serious academic evidence in support of your your comments, then they really count for very little
.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostWhile some "contradictions" are more significant than others, many are indeed nothing burgers...
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostProvide examples not excuses
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
As for your supposed "contradictions", they are trivial to resolve and any number of essays and books have done so, which I will leave to the sincere seeker to find on his own since they are numerous and readily available through a simple internet search query. I will, however, note that what is commonly regarded as supposed "contradictions" in the Bible are generally down to differences in writing conventions where ancient writers did not write with the same precision as is often demanded today, and so they used what we might consider unconventional methods such as reordering events thematically rather than chronologically, compressing multiple events into a single narrative, paraphrasing, approximating, and so on. As the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy says, "When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. "
The fact of the matter is, that it often depends on the audience and what the person providing the account wants to emphasize. Just like what we see today.
For instance, the following describe the exact same thing. If someone were to ask "Bob" if they ever went over to see "Steve's" new house and got one of the following
Yeah. I went over there Saturday and stayed over there for about three hours
Last weekend, after work, I went past the park and picked up Carol and went over there. He was just walking back up his driveway after getting his mail
I went this past weekend. You wouldn't believe the traffic. It was like everybody and their brother was taking their dog to the park. And then there was a fend-bender by the square and it took us three lights to get through but we finally made it
All three describe the exact same thing. All provide different details.
Only the second one mentions Carol going as well, but the third indicates it with the use of "us" and "we." The first was a barebones recount and left that detail out but does not contradict that more than one person went to Steve's.
A similar thing can be seen about exactly how many women went to the tomb after Jesus' crucifixion.
Matthew, gives a very brief account seemingly eager to get on to the Great Commission. Both he and Mark mention Mary Magdalene as going. They also mention a second Mary, who is described differently, likely because Matthew's audience may have been familiar with who she was so "the other Mary" sufficed. Mark, OTOH, might have wanted to be sure they understood which Mary so he adds "the mother of James" into the descriptor and also notes that Salome was there as well. Nobody else mentions Salome, but that could be due to Mark's audience knowing Salome or simply that she doesn't play much of a role later on so no need to mention her and therefore explain who she is. Keep in mind both paper and ink were expensive and not to be wasted. And while John only mentions Mary Magdalene, it is clear she was not alone because she uses the term "we" when describing events. So for whatever reason John wanted the spotlight on her.
- 3 likes
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostI have given you the contradictions. You cannot answer them.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
And now we've come to our part of the program where the braindead skeptic doesn't have a valid rebuttal,
I have given you the contradictions. You cannot answer them.
Where are the academic sources in support of your contentions?
Leave a comment:
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
|
39 responses
186 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Yesterday, 03:32 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
|
21 responses
132 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 03-21-2024, 12:15 PM | ||
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
|
80 responses
428 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 12:33 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
|
45 responses
305 views
1 like
|
Last Post 03-17-2024, 07:19 AM | ||
Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
|
406 responses
2,518 views
2 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 05:49 PM
|
Leave a comment: