Problematic Christians and Consistent Bible Text, Vol I

It is an oft made claim that various Bible passages contradict each other and cause “problems” for Christians.

In fact, a quick Google search reveals entire websites devoted to highlighting these supposed “contradictions.”

With all of today’s Google scholars prowling around the internet, it’s no surprise that many of these “contradictions” repeatedly pop up, making life hard for the Christian apologist.

Of course many books have been written in defense of the Christian doctrine of scripture. I find myself agreeing with the Princeton theologians like Charles Hodge, and B.B. Warfield, as well as (and specifically) Cornelius Van Til, who in the tradition of the Dutch Calvinists, draws a particularly strong case.

A quick illustration will clarify the uniqueness of Van Til.

Suppose the Christian apologist is in a room with the non-Christian Google scholar (NCGS). The NCGS has a gun, filled with freshly googled Bible contradictions, primed and aimed straight at the heart of the apologist.

The apologist may dodge the first bullet. He may dodge the second. But, pretty soon, one of the bullets will hit him. I used to spend my time studying each and every supposed “contradiction” thought up by the NCGS in order to effectively explain it away, but inevitably, someone out there would always come up with one I hadn’t studied, and thus would consider the debate won.

After awhile, I got tired of all the elephant hurling and out of context quote mining. I eventually ran across the arguments of Van Til, and the Princeton Theologians.

Now, instead of dodging bullets, I find it much easier to wrest the gun away from the NCGS, and knock him out with it.

You see, the real conflict between the apologist and the NCGS is not one of content or “fact” but rather one of the interpretation of the content and “fact.” This is true at base with all conflicting worldviews.

I, as a Christian, have a completely different epistemology than that of the NCGS (many of which have no idea what epistemology even is.)

Thus, we will find ourselves arguing all day over every single fact of our existence. Suppose I adequately explain and harmonize every single word, jot, and tittle of the Bible to the NCGS? He would then go on to challenge me on every single fact of our existence. It would be a never ending collision between two opposing worldviews.

Much better, would be to directly attack the NCGS’s foundational assumptions that he uses to read the Bible to begin with, and, (like in the illustration) use those very assumptions against him, demonstrating that these very assumptions disqualify him from even talking about the Bible to begin with.

I’ll show how this is done specifically, in Vol II…assuming there is interest of course.

God Bless

I would like to see how.

My suggestion is that most people try to turn the fictional narrative provided by Scripture into an historical narrative. They try to make God into a particular being rather than a character in a story and the result is endless contradiction. For example, once they make God into a particular being, they then say God must be omnipotent. This, and the fact that there is suffering in the world, contradicts God’s love.

I’m interested to hear your approach though.

Yes, I’d like to see how this is done as well. I had to read up on the definition of epistemology though, so I guess I qualify as one of those NCGS’s. :frowning:

I am interested to hear how different foundational assumptions eliminate the contradictions found in the Bible.

Quakers (The Society of Friends) feel similarly - that biblical “contradictions” aren’t important - seemingly, or at least theoretically, without undermining their Christian faith:

(From entry on “Inner Light”)

I don’t see what the big deal is about biblical contradictions. Supposedly scripture was written by ordinary human beings who were inspired by god to give a message to all people. But unless god was forcing their hands, people are going to make mistakes. Maybe god just made sure that the basic message was right, but gave people enough freedom to give the message on their own terms. And when people give a message on their own terms, they make mistakes and contradict themselves sometimes. So scripture could still fulfill its role in Christianity even if it has some historical/mathematical/scientific errors. To say that scripture must be perfect in every way is to indulge in “all-or-nothing” thinking, and it also assumes god operates in a way you have no evidence he operates. There is not even a single bible verse that says unequivocally that scripture is completely perfect and inerrant.

Don’t worry, we got the message: denying the holy spirit sends you straight to hell. Don’t pass go, don’t collect $200.

Slavery is okay. Homosexuality isn’t. [-o<

Depends who you are and what theology you are looking at.

I like the LDS theological take, though I’m still digging through piles of books to play “catch-up” on this reading so many grew up with:
But denying the scriptures, not being “saved”, etc…, etc… doesn’t put one directly in hell.

It’s actually hard to say that the LDS believe in hell the same as other Christians even.
The LDS hold that after life, you are given more chances to redeem yourself and it is only by turning away from all chances that you end up in hell.

However, you can bypass all of that in the LDS theology by learning the full truth of the scripture (which is the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price in the LDS theological doctrines) and accept it as true, become baptized, make a personal covenant with God, and then turn away and deny all of it that you can go directly to hell after death instead of to heaven.

This is the same concept that is in the Bible in Matthew where it is outlined that those that practice in the name of God wrongly, or knew God and then denied him, will be immediately denied heaven.

I explain this as an example of variation on the concept to say that not all takes on the message are “believe or die for ever in hell”.

As to slavery:
God has never seemed to have concern in the Bible about slavery.
In fact, the Hebrews are rescued from the Egyptians to effectively become God’s slaves, which they weren’t affiliated with God prior to this and had been shown to believe in other gods.
They were to abide by God or be punished, and they were punished several times in the Bible; that’s a slave.

Homosexuality; apparently God in the Bible just doesn’t like this act, and confesses it to destroy a man’s soul in some manner.

That’s God.
Bias and more powerful than Man.

So…that’s all that matter in the issues of gods.

You big, me small. I like live, what you want?

Thanks for the interest folks.

Aporia raises some very good points that I hope to begin addressing in Vol III (if we get that far.) Christian doctrines of inspiration and infallibility are a bit on the technical side, and I hope to cover some preliminary ground before we get there.

To Mr Dorkydood,

I find it odd that you could make over a thousand posts at a place called “I love philosophy” without repeatedly discussing epistemology. But…I suppose stranger things have happened.

Shotgun I can see that you admire Van Til and the Princeton theologians but understand that it is not just google pimple-faced kids that have challenged the cohesiveness of the Bible. Study the early history of the Church and you find that various books became the Bible, and that certain Books where rejected outright or made it into the canon after deliberation, human deliberation mind you, about the cohesiveness or contradictions they brought into the table. Now, centuries after, Van Til, you and the theologians have forgotten about history and take the Bible as a whole product that fell from heaven, as if written by the lighting from God’s hand, instead of a divinely inspired (claimed) but ultimately human, and sometimes all-too-human, production.

theists can aways retreat into a more complex justification for the existence of god, and atheists can always make a more complex denial of god.

It’s one big inductive waste of time.

If anyone has the gun in this debate, it’s the agnost, with double pistols.

I know…sad, isn’t it?

Don’t get me wrong, I peruse through the posts that talk about epistemology, but they’re usually over my head. :blush:

Omar,

Be careful in your characterization of certain theological positions. I find your above statement to be unfair and uninformed.

That aside, such discussion will have to take place in another post.

To DorkyDood…

At least you’re honest. The rest of us rest securely behind our mask of understanding, and make arrogant statements. lol…oh how mercy favors the undeserving!

Shotgun, what do you call unfair in my response? That I said: “Now, centuries after, Van Til, you and the theologians have forgotten about history and take the Bible as a whole product that fell from heaven, as if written by the lighting from God’s hand, instead of a divinely inspired (claimed) but ultimately human, and sometimes all-too-human, production.”?
I stand fully behind that based on what you have written, which was unfair enough. Let me quote some of it:
“Suppose the Christian apologist is in a room with the non-Christian Google scholar (NCGS).”
The argument I am making is that this is not correct; that the apologist is NOT JUST in the room with NCGS; that in fact those who have pointed these contradictions have been part of the Christian movement, at some point, Christian scholars themselves.
Further along you say:
“The NCGS has a gun, filled with freshly googled Bible contradictions, primed and aimed straight at the heart of the apologist.”
I love the self-victimization going on here, though it forgets, again, history. I can say that it is in fact the Christian apologist who has a gun filled with so-called-facts he got from dogma and Christology, which he then aims at the very heart of any non-Christian.

You say:
“…but inevitably, someone out there would always come up with one I hadn’t studied, and thus would consider the debate won.”
What are the terms used to declare victory? The debate ends in a draw, if anything. he, the NCGS, remains what he was prior to the debate and the theologian also remains what he was before the engagement. If the Christian outlast his opponent then he does win the argument because he converts the opponent into one of his own.

You say:
“After awhile, I got tired of all the elephant hurling and out of context quote mining. I eventually ran across the arguments of Van Til, and the Princeton Theologians.”
And you accuse me of being unfair? You have provided no argument whatsoever and you characterize the opposition’s entire argument as resting on no other basis than cherry-picked quotes. There is no contradiction, you make me think, when it is all read within the proper context. Yet any jew would accuse you of doing the same crime to jewish scriptures in order to obtain confirmation of Jesus messiah-status. Christiology, they would say (check their websites), is based on out-of-context quotations.
I hope your reply will have substance. This Christian inspired vanity must be confronted. This is the “Religion” board, not the Christian religion forum. You want to debate the Bible’s problematic passages? I will be glad to join in, but don’t think for a second that either you or I approaches the text without given preconceptions, worldviews and certain agendas or that your worldview is objectively the true measure of the text.

Omar,

My illustration was meant to demonstrate the uniqueness of a Van Tillian approach. Thus, your critique of it as an objectively relevant illustration of all of Biblical history (or even of all polemical history in Christandom) is a strawman.

You’re welcome to demonstrate how my illustraiton has erred in representing Van Til, (of course you’d have to actually read Van Til to attempt such a critique.)

Also, as a side note, I would be the first to agree with you that we all approach the scriptures with prior assumptions.

My assertion here is that the non Christian google scholar (who we’ll learn more about in Vol II) holds to prior philosophical assumptions that make reading (and reasoning) impossible. Thus his own philosophy excludes him from having a discussion about biblical consistency in the first place.

Once the nature of these prior assumptions are brought to light, we can begin diagnosing the problems with the more articulate systems that deny orthodox doctrines of infallibility etc.

And, by the way…my worldview is the objective measure of the text, since the text objectively informs my worldview.

Hello Shotgun:

— My illustration was meant to demonstrate the uniqueness of a Van Tillian approach. Thus, your critique of it as an objectively relevant illustration of all of Biblical history (or even of all polemical history in Christandom) is a strawman.
O- If it was only a straw man, but I am talking about Christianity, so there is only so much you and I can stray. There are limits to what you and other theologians can say as you are bound by Christian dogma.

— You’re welcome to demonstrate how my illustraiton has erred in representing Van Til, (of course you’d have to actually read Van Til to attempt such a critique.)
O- The critique was not meant to object to your reading of Van Til, but the effort of Van Til and others, including you, to marginalize history from the subject of Biblical interpretation.

— My assertion here is that the non Christian google scholar (who we’ll learn more about in Vol II) holds to prior philosophical assumptions that make reading (and reasoning) impossible. Thus his own philosophy excludes him from having a discussion about biblical consistency in the first place.
O- My counter is that there are those who have proposed the incoherence within the Biblical texts but while inside the Christian religion.

— And, by the way…my worldview is the objective measure of the text, since the text objectively informs my worldview.
O- Your interpretation of the text informs your worldview and not the text by itself. A jew is not reading Dr Seuss…

The critique was not meant to object to your reading of Van Til, but the effort of Van Til and others, including you, to marginalize history from the subject of Biblical interpretation - quote from the zealous Omar

So, you’ve adequately studied Van Til, and others, and concluded that they unfairly and invalidly marginalize history?

Interesting. Maybe you could make a post to discuss your disagreements.

My counter is that there are those who have proposed the incoherence within the Biblical texts but while inside the Christian religion. - quote from the zealous Omar

A point that is entirely irrelevant to my post.

Your interpretation of the text informs your worldview and not the text by itself- quote from the zealous Omar

A clever observation you’ve made from your own interpretation of the “text” (or in our case, empirical fact of my statement.) If you do not like it with a shotgun, you should not like it with a Jewish pun, or in a forum with decorum…or in a post with a (Christian) host…(I got a million of em…)

So from “unfair” I am now, in your opinion, “zealous”. Lovely.

— So, you’ve adequately studied Van Til, and others, and concluded that they unfairly and invalidly marginalize history?
Interesting. Maybe you could make a post to discuss your disagreements.
O- Maybe some other time we can discuss Calvin and Luther and Erasmus, or St Augustine and Ratzinger. Why not? For now, let’s see your presentation of the calvinist Van Til.

— A point that is entirely irrelevant to my post.
O- “Irrelevant”? You have made the point that only worldviews stand in the way of resolving the apparent contradictions in the text. That the secular worlview, as I see it, blinds the online critic of Christianity. Therefore it is quite relevant, I think, to observe that even those who considered themselves to be within the Christian worlview have noticed and commented on biblical contradictions. Take the book of revelation for example:
“Revelation is considered by some to be one of the most controversial and difficult books of the Bible, with many diverse interpretations of the meanings of the various names and events in the account. Protestant founder Martin Luther at first considered Revelation to be “neither apostolic nor prophetic” and stated that “Christ is neither taught nor known in it”, and placed it in his Antilegomena. John Calvin believed the book to be canonical, yet it was the only New Testament book on which he did not write a commentary.” (From Wikipedia)
Same went with the Gospel of John, another favourite of various Gnostic-Christian sects. These self-declared Christians would be labelled heretics because their interpretation differed from the orthodox worldview. You have different interpretations even within the same religious (and self-declared Christian) worldview and not just between religious and non-religious opinions.

Van Til’s notion that, “By rejecting an absolutely rational God that determines whatsoever comes to pass and presupposing that some non-rational force ultimately determines the nature of the universe, the non-Christian cannot account for rationality” is akin to Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism. According to Wikipedia, “Van Til claims that non-Christian presuppositions reduce to absurdity and are self-defeating.” That sounds like Plantinga’s claim that given natural selection and the presupposition of naturalism that there is no God, the probability that we can arrive at true beliefs is low or inscrutable. Van Til thinks that when non-Christians reason they are being inconsistent with their presuppositions. Plantinga would surely agree. I’m following a discussion about Plantinga’s argument on another thread.

Welcome into the ad hominem world of Shotgun …

I find your comments absolutely relevant and to the point!

Shalom