Conflicting statements in the bible

[Statler Waldorf]

Now who's peddling baseless assertions eh?

It’s not a baseless assertion when it can be constructed into a valid and sound syllogism.

Its a forum, the discussion wanders. Knowing which interpretation was the accurate one would be required before being able to determine if there were -in fact- any contradictions, wouldn't you agree?

No, I do not agree. If both interpretations alleviate the alleged contradiction then knowing which is correct is not needed.

If one can;t be certain of what is being said - then how would one identify a contradiction?

I am not the one claiming that I can identify contradictions in the Bible, so that may be a better question for someone else.

I prefer magic. You have yours, I have mine.

I prefer rationality myself.

See, there's your magic - you know things about me without having ever met me - that's what.... your 6th or 7th sense in operation?

No, I have revelation from someone who knows you better than even you do. No extra senses needed.

[The Grand Nudger]

It’s not a baseless assertion when it can be constructed into a valid and sound syllogism.

You'll need more than the claim. Till then you're just crying foul.

No, I do not agree. If both interpretations alleviate the alleged contradiction then knowing which is correct is not needed.

What? Of course it's needed. To be "right" for the wrong reasons is frankly, no better than being wrong.

I am not the one claiming that I can identify contradictions in the Bible, so that may be a better question for someone else.

But you are claiming to know what is being said, which again, would be required if one wanted to identify a contradiction, would it not?

I prefer rationality myself.

Clearly not telepath. Perhaps next you'll read my tea leaves?

No, I have revelation from someone who knows you better than even you do. No extra senses needed.

Incantations from a book of spells?

[A_Nony_Mouse]

Are you really claiming the lower number was a news report from the front lines not a final number?

First, I'm not claiming anything. I'm noting that a simple explanation exists.

Without news reports from the front all numbers would be final tallies after the event. You are complicating things.

Second, you spin it as if the difference in time is short. It isn't. It's years.

You are aware, are you not, that such excuses were invented after an issue was made of the contradiction?

A person can have an old resume which shows their highest education as a high school degree, and another which shows their highest education as a college degree. If the latter was dated four or more years later than the former, no one would yell Contradiction! This isn't rocket science.

Nor is it rocket science to expect the author of the newer to have read the older and not explain the difference if in fact there were an explanation. How can the younger writer not know a different number was just sowing confusion?

To those saying that Christians are doing gymnastics to avoid contradictions: look in the mirror. You're doing gymnastics to try to uphold the contradictions. You'd be better off admitting that there's some crap in that chart and trying to make a chart with fewer but better charges.

The contradiction is there. Nothing is needed to uphold it. It is simply a matter of discounting explanations for it that make so little sense.

[Minimalist]

Even if what you assert were true, which doesn’t appear to be the case at all

You claimed that Quirinius was a procurator, Waldork. He was not. I see that as an a typical example of your shoddy excuse for scholarship. I just want you to know that I will pounce on your sorry fucking jesus-loving ass for every fuckup you make.

---

What you miss is that the two passages are given at different points in the chronology, with the 800 at a later point than the 300. So, both could be accurate.

Personally I tend to think that the numerical differences are more likely due to copying errors which have no effect on doctrine. But in this case, you don't even have a solid numerical difference due to the time factor.

You are out of your fucking mind, Johnny. I understand the desperation but when even the bible thumping translators cross-reference these two passages you clearly have your head way up your ass.

---

Without news reports from the front all numbers would be final tallies after the event. You are complicating things.

They have to. Otherwise their fucking holy book looks like the pile of shit that it actually is.

[justin]

says to treat others as you would yourself yourself......goes on massive geneocides......

[John V]

Without news reports from the front all numbers would be final tallies after the event. You are complicating things.

I don't know what you're getting at with this.

You are aware, are you not, that such excuses were invented after an issue was made of the contradiction?

And? I would think most explanations for alleged contradictions are made after the allegation.

Nor is it rocket science to expect the author of the newer to have read the older and not explain the difference if in fact there were an explanation. How can the younger writer not know a different number was just sowing confusion?

We don't know that he had read the other account. Alternatively, it could have been common knowledge. I doubt he was writing with you in mind.

The contradiction is there. Nothing is needed to uphold it. It is simply a matter of discounting explanations for it that make so little sense.

A difference is there, but there is an explanation by which the two are not mutually exclusive, and so the difference is not troubling for the inerrantist. Whether you feel that it's a likely explanation is irrelevant. As I noted myself, I personally find it more likely that they both said the same thing initially, but a copying error was introduced into one at some point.

[Statler Waldorf]

You'll need more than the claim. Till then you're just crying foul.

More than what claim?

What? Of course it's needed. To be "right" for the wrong reasons is frankly, no better than being wrong.

Again you seem to be missing the point of this thread. A contradiction cannot exist if there is any possible way to resolve it, if there are multiple ways to resolve it, it doesn’t matter which one is correct it refutes the existence of a contradiction.

But you are claiming to know what is being said, which again, would be required if one wanted to identify a contradiction, would it not?

I do not think the word contradiction means what you think it means. If John V and I have different interpretations of what a verse means but both possible interpretations reconcile any apparent contradiction in the verse then we have successfully refuted the alleged contradiction because if a true contradiction exists there is no possible explanation that can reconcile it. You’re just trying to get Christians to argue with one another on here which is not going to happen, we have Christian forums for that.

Clearly not telepath. Perhaps next you'll read my tea leaves?

There’s nothing irrational about valuing the word of someone who knows everything and cannot lie over a fallible human’s claims. In fact, it would be a bit irrational to accept the latter over the former.

Incantations from a book of spells?

No, revelation from the all-knowing.

You claimed that Quirinius was a procurator, Waldork. He was not.

According to Martyr he was a procurator, I am going to take his word over yours, you’re old but you’re not that old. I already pointed out the fallacy of your reasoning anyways; you do not know how Augustus appointed procurators, you only know how Tiberius did.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

Without news reports from the front all numbers would be final tallies after the event. You are complicating things.

I don't know what you're getting at with this.

How could different numbers arise when they are both after the fact? Where would an interim number come from?

You are aware, are you not, that such excuses were invented after an issue was made of the contradiction?

And? I would think most explanations for alleged contradictions are made after the allegation.

There is no allegation. It is a fact. One would be much more impressed had believers "explained" it before critics pointed it out.

Nor is it rocket science to expect the author of the newer to have read the older and not explain the difference if in fact there were an explanation. How can the younger writer not know a different number was just sowing confusion?

We don't know that he had read the other account. Alternatively, it could have been common knowledge. I doubt he was writing with you in mind.

What are the implications of not knowing of prior writings? Obviously if inspired then inspired without explanation is to deliberately sow confusion. If a human creation then it is difficult to see how the creator of such an important historical document would not know about other historical documents.

The contradiction is there. Nothing is needed to uphold it. It is simply a matter of discounting explanations for it that make so little sense.

A difference is there, but there is an explanation by which the two are not mutually exclusive, and so the difference is not troubling for the inerrantist. Whether you feel that it's a likely explanation is irrelevant. As I noted myself, I personally find it more likely that they both said the same thing initially, but a copying error was introduced into one at some point.

The simplest explanation is always the most likely. That believers are willing to engage in contortions is their business. To believe it is inerrant is as invention beyond the contents of the books. It is also an invention of the believers.

[Tex]

A: "The simplest explanation is always the most likely."
T: Why does the universe just "simply exist"?
A: Because that's simple.
T: But it's irrational.
A: You're just too dumb to understand. Why do you "engage in contortions" and revel in the "belief of the believers".
T: That doesn't actually answer my objection.
A: You never made one; you're just dumb.
T: The universe "simply existing" is irrational. Therefore, the claim "the universe exists because it's simple" is irrational.
A: You're so dumb. Your God is evil.
T: That's a red herring, sir. I'd like if you'd address my question.
A: Can't answer me? I think that means you concede. I'll take this as a win.
T: This isn't a contest, and you changed the subject. Talk about the matter at hand.
A: I win. Give me my trophy.
T: I think you're a troll.
A: I should receive laurel and food for life.
A: I am so awesome. No one can beat me.
A: I will probably say that in reality, this conversation is flipped and T stands for Tard.
A: I'm a genius. I connected that T and tard start with the same letter.
A: Where is T? He probably ran away scared.
A: ...
A: Hello?
A: I need to find someone else to give me attention...

[Statler Waldorf]

---

A: "The simplest explanation is always the most likely."
T: Why does the universe just "simply exist"?
A: Because that's simple.
T: But it's irrational.
A: You're just too dumb to understand. Why do you "engage in contortions" and revel in the "belief of the believers".
T: That doesn't actually answer my objection.
A: You never made one; you're just dumb.
T: The universe "simply existing" is irrational. Therefore, the claim "the universe exists because it's simple" is irrational.
A: You're so dumb. Your God is evil.
T: That's a red herring, sir. I'd like if you'd address my question.
A: Can't answer me? I think that means you concede. I'll take this as a win.
T: This isn't a contest, and you changed the subject. Talk about the matter at hand.
A: I win. Give me my trophy.
T: I think you're a troll.
A: I should receive laurel and food for life.
A: I am so awesome. No one can beat me.
A: I will probably say that in reality, this conversation is flipped and T stands for Tard.
A: I'm a genius. I connected that T and tard start with the same letter.
A: Where is T? He probably ran away scared.
A: ...
A: Hello?
A: I need to find someone else to give me attention...

---

This is hilarious. A lot of atheists understand the Law of Parsimony about as well as they understand what a logical contradiction is.