Open letter to Christians

[Nihilist Virus]

It is factual that the Bible contradicts itself.

 
Please define what you mean by 'contradicts.'

These errors are either part of the original documents, or else are transcriber errors.  Since this is unknown, we assume in the favor of Christianity that these are transcriber errors.

What do you mean here?  We have enough manuscripts and various lines of transmission to determine where the textual variants are.  The vast majority of these variants have no effect on the meaning of the text, though some do.

It seems, then, that you believe two things: first, that a group of men who were doing all that they could to prevent the Bible from accumulating errors were unable to find assistance from God in this matter (John 14:13) and ultimately failed at their task;

What are your references that Christians specifically prayed in Jesus name that there would be no transcriber errors?  I'm not saying these accounts do not exist, I'm just asking for some references to support your claim.

and second, that an ancient being who is described as clever at every opportunity and who is malicious to the gospel is somehow unable to at least match the blunders of the men who were doing their best to prevent errors from accumulating.

 
In actuality having multiple lines of transmission has shown the text as reliable, more than a single line of transmission would have.

If God allows men to corrupt the Bible, but prevents Satan from doing so, then it is natural to believe that God is impeding Satan's free will to the point that Satan can only do what God wants him to do, which is to say that Satan acts on God's behalf.

Bit of a stretch to say that scriber errors that can be verified and accurately corrected [due to multiple lines of transmission] equate to the Bible being corrupted,  but if you believe that, then where?  Where is the Bible corrupted?

If, on the other hand, God allows anything to happen to the Bible, and does not interfere, then you can be assured that the Bible says exactly what Satan wants it to say.

That assumes that only God can impede Satan's will.  In other words, that assumes that without God's direct restraint everything would be under Satan's control.  Is that true?  Can you prove it?

At the very least, we know we should treat the Bible like you would treat any document that is confirmed to contain both true and false claims: you have to meticulously comb over every claim and consult your own intellect to determine the truth value of each claim.

Can we determine the truth value of every claim in the Bible?  Is it possible to prove that God is all knowing apart from His word?

Because with contradictions, you lose the "because it's in the Bible" defense.  Why do you believe in the Flood?  Because it's in the Bible?  Well, contradictions are in the Bible, do you believe those are true, too?  Clearly not, so you cannot use "because it's in the Bible" as an answer for belief.  On some level you must use your own reasoning.  Does your own intellect tell you it is reasonable to believe in talking donkeys?

This assumes a premise that has not been proven, namely that the Bible has contradictions.

There is another issue you really ought to use your own intellect on.  It is regrettable and also somehow amusing to me, as a US citizen and former Christian, that the two documents I used to revere the most - the Bible and the Declaration of Independence - were written by racist, sexist, conquesting, genocidal, slave-driving rapists.

 
Weird, I thought Luke was a physician.  

The Declaration of Independence, though, does not claim divine authority - or if it does, I think we tend to ignore that.  So why, when you understand that a group of ancient savages drafted a system of morality and a proposed method of atonement, do you believe that adherence to these principles is in any way reasonable?

Is an argument based upon the genetic fallacy in any way reasonable?

Please define what you mean by 'contradicts.'

Am I talking to Bill Clinton? I'll do that for you... right after you define what you mean by 'define.'


Anyway, you suggest that there are no contradictions in the Bible, or at the very least you are playing dumb with me. Ok, I'll play along.

Here's a simple one:

2 Kings 8:26 vs 2 Chronicles 22:2.

Here's a more complicated one:


1. Josiah had four sons, and they are listed in order of birth (1 Chronicles 3:15). In order, they are Johanan, Jehoiakim/Eliakim, Zedekiah, and Shallum/Jehoahaz.

1a. Jehoiakim=Eliakim (2 Kings 23:34, 2 Chronicles 36:4).

1b. Shallum=Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:30,Jeremiah 22:11).

2. Jehoiakim had two sons (1 Chronicles 3:16), one of whom is named Zedekiah.

3. Note the important distinction which I will maintain: Zedekiah in bold is the son of Josiah, and Zedekiah with the underscore is the son of Jehoiakim.

"Zedekiah" was 21 years old when he became king and reigned 11 years (2 Kings 24:18). First assume this is referring to Zedekiah.

I. Jehoahaz is 23 years old when he begins to reign, and reigns for 3 months (2 Kings 23:31,2 Chronicles 36:2).

II. Jehoiakim succeeds Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:33-34, 2 Chronicles 36:4).

III. Jehoiakim is 25 years old when he begins to reign, and reigns for 11 years (2 Kings 23:36, 2 Chronicles 36:5).

IV. Jehoiakim is succeeded by Jehoiachin, who reigns for 3 months (2 Kings 24:6-8, 2 Chronicles 36:8-9).

V. Jehoiachin is succeeded by Zedekiah (2 Kings 24:17, 2 Chronicles 36:10).

VI. Zedekiah was 21 years old when he became king, and reigns for 11 years. (2 Kings 24:18, 2 Chronicles 36:11).

VII. The chronological progression from I. to VI. tells us that Jehoahaz is 23 years old (I.) + 3 months (I.) + 11 years (III.) + 3 months (IV.) = 34.5 years old (or at least would be if he were alive) at the same time that Zedekiah is 21 years old. But 1. from the very top tells us that Jehoahaz is Zedekiah's younger brother. Therefore Zedekiah is younger than his younger brother, a contradiction.

Now assume it is Zedekiah that reigns.

Then this contradicts the prophecy given that Jehoiakim will have no offspring reign after him (Jeremiah 36:30), since Zedekiah is his son. And this is not a "bounce" on the throne because he reigns for 11 years.

QED


By the way, it turns out that it is Zedekiah. Jeremiah 37:1 confirms this.


Next you ask me for evidence that scribes prayed for God's help when translating or copying. I have none. But just so we're clear, you want me to believe that men who devote their lives to God and pray before eating a donut will not take the time to pray before transcribing the word of God?

You then ask for evidence that "without God's direct restraint everything would be under Satan's control. Is that true? Can you prove it?" Yes I can prove it. Your Bible says that Satan is the god of this world. 2 Corinthians 4:4.

"What do you mean here? We have enough manuscripts and various lines of transmission to determine where the textual variants are. The vast majority of these variants have no effect on the meaning of the text, though some do."

I said I am assuming in the favor of Christianity that the errors are not contradictions in the original manuscripts but rather are transcriber errors. Would you prefer we change this working assumption?

"Can we determine the truth value of every claim in the Bible? Is it possible to prove that God is all knowing apart from His word?"

So evidence is not required for the claim that a being with infinite knowledge exists? Yet you are grilling me here on every fine little detail.

"Weird, I thought Luke was a physician."

Cute. I was referring to Joshua. Still playing dumb I see.

"Is an argument based upon the genetic fallacy in any way reasonable?"

Do you have any intention of reading Mein Kampf to see if there is a deity speaking through the author? After all, let's not jump to conclusions about Hitler. He didn't even commit as many war crimes as the authors of the Bible.