We now return to the issue of biblical contradictions (after giving more than 40 in previous blogs), which – of course – the fundamentalists will try to sweep under the rug or employ other specious arguments in an effort to get around them. You can be sure they will deperately try to get around this next set - which have to do with the basis for "salvation". After all, if their followers are given conflicting and contradicting guidance here, what's next? Telling them that they are all predestined for Hell or Heaven so there's nothing that they can do anyway?
Once more, be assured the zombie fundies will deny everything. They'll merely insist the clashing quotes are “inconsistencies” which are not contradictions. I guess this fits right into their fantasy realm wherein they can believe six impossible things before breakfast- so this isn’t too startling.
However, an “inconsistency” defined in my Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, is given as:
"Lacking in agreement, as two or more things in relation to each other"
“Contradiction”
"Direct opposition between things compared, inconsistency. That which is inconsistent involves involves variance, discrepancy or even contradiction, especially from the point of view of truth, reason, or logic."
Note that the word “discrepancy” above, ALSO means DIFFERENCE!
Thus, the two words can, in effect, be used interchangeably, and moreover there is more than the implication (from the latter extension of the def.) that an assault on truth is involved. Now as to reconciling the contradictory passages, I still maintain as I did before that this CAN be done, but ONLY if one adopts a non-literalist approach. Yes, the writers used differing colloquial terms of the period, and maybe even there were “copyist errors” to account for differences.. BUT IF either is true the bible’s words CANNOT be taken literally but must be re-interpreted, e.g. in light of the jargon or word forms of the time, or to reckon in the copyist errors!
Biblical literalists, basically, want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to claim the bible is “inerrant” and can be read “as is” – literally - but then they want to also claim the “contradictions aren’t real" or have to be parsed in the context of "what the writers really meant". (In other words it can’t be read “as is”) They don’t understand they can’t have it BOTH ways! Either the bible is inerrant and stands alone without the need to interpret the differing passages, OR it can only be read in the spirit of the book and interpretations are a natural part of it.
So, now we give more contradictions to do with the “Salvation” myth. In each case, a question will be given - then the answers: 'YES' and 'NO' and the biblical sources where each is found.
1. Are unsaved sinners eternally tormented?
YES: Isa 33:14; Matt. 13:40-42, 25:41,46; Mrk 9:43-48; Jude 6-7; Rev. 14:10-11
NO: Eze 18:4; Matt 7:13, 10:28; Luk 13:3,5; John 3:15-16; Acts 3:23; 1Cor 15:18; 2Th 2:10; Heb 10:39; 2Pe 3:7,9
2. Will everyone get saved?
YES: John 12:32; Rom 5:18, 11:32; 1Cor 15:22; Col 1:20; 1Ti 2:4,6; 1John 2:2
NO: Matt 7:13-14; Luke 13:23-24
3. Is salvation totally predestined by God?
YES: Ps 65:4; Pr 16:9, 20:24; Isa 46:9-11; Jer 10:23; John 6:44,65-65, 15:16; Ac 15:18; Rom 8:28-30, 9:18; 1Pe 1:2; Eph 1:4-5,11, 2:4-10; 2Th 2:13; Rev 13:8, 17:8
NO: Matt 25:34-40; Luke 10:25-37; John 5:28-29; Rom 2:5-10; Jas 2:14-26
4. Is one who believes in God's son, but who has never repented, saved?
YES: John 3:15-16,36, 6:40,47, 11:25; Ac 16:31; Rom 10:9; 1Jo 5:12
NO: Luke 13:3,5
5. Is one who believes in God's son, but who has done no good deeds, saved?
YES: John 3:15-16,36, 6:40,47, 11:25; Ac 16:31; Rom 10:9; 1Jo 5:12
NO: Matt 25:41-46; John 5:28-29; Rom 2:5-10; Jas 2:14-26
6. Is one who is very moral and charitable, but who does not believe in God’s son, saved?
YES: Matt 19:16-17, 25:34-40,46; Mrk 10:17-21; Luke 10:25-37, 18:18-22; John 5:28-29, 8:51; Rom 2:5-7,10; Jas 2:24
NO: Luke 13:3,5
Note that NONE of these entails “minor differences”. If someone who refuses to accept Jesus Christ as Savior but is still moral and does good works, then the last set of quotations mre than supports his position.
In the end, despite all their bluster and rectitude, the fundies don't have a clue what the prescription for their own salvation is, since they haven't been able to sort out their own scriptures. They ought to at least do that before trying to proselytize the rest of us!
Once more, be assured the zombie fundies will deny everything. They'll merely insist the clashing quotes are “inconsistencies” which are not contradictions. I guess this fits right into their fantasy realm wherein they can believe six impossible things before breakfast- so this isn’t too startling.
However, an “inconsistency” defined in my Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, is given as:
"Lacking in agreement, as two or more things in relation to each other"
“Contradiction”
"Direct opposition between things compared, inconsistency. That which is inconsistent involves involves variance, discrepancy or even contradiction, especially from the point of view of truth, reason, or logic."
Note that the word “discrepancy” above, ALSO means DIFFERENCE!
Thus, the two words can, in effect, be used interchangeably, and moreover there is more than the implication (from the latter extension of the def.) that an assault on truth is involved. Now as to reconciling the contradictory passages, I still maintain as I did before that this CAN be done, but ONLY if one adopts a non-literalist approach. Yes, the writers used differing colloquial terms of the period, and maybe even there were “copyist errors” to account for differences.. BUT IF either is true the bible’s words CANNOT be taken literally but must be re-interpreted, e.g. in light of the jargon or word forms of the time, or to reckon in the copyist errors!
Biblical literalists, basically, want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to claim the bible is “inerrant” and can be read “as is” – literally - but then they want to also claim the “contradictions aren’t real" or have to be parsed in the context of "what the writers really meant". (In other words it can’t be read “as is”) They don’t understand they can’t have it BOTH ways! Either the bible is inerrant and stands alone without the need to interpret the differing passages, OR it can only be read in the spirit of the book and interpretations are a natural part of it.
So, now we give more contradictions to do with the “Salvation” myth. In each case, a question will be given - then the answers: 'YES' and 'NO' and the biblical sources where each is found.
1. Are unsaved sinners eternally tormented?
YES: Isa 33:14; Matt. 13:40-42, 25:41,46; Mrk 9:43-48; Jude 6-7; Rev. 14:10-11
NO: Eze 18:4; Matt 7:13, 10:28; Luk 13:3,5; John 3:15-16; Acts 3:23; 1Cor 15:18; 2Th 2:10; Heb 10:39; 2Pe 3:7,9
2. Will everyone get saved?
YES: John 12:32; Rom 5:18, 11:32; 1Cor 15:22; Col 1:20; 1Ti 2:4,6; 1John 2:2
NO: Matt 7:13-14; Luke 13:23-24
3. Is salvation totally predestined by God?
YES: Ps 65:4; Pr 16:9, 20:24; Isa 46:9-11; Jer 10:23; John 6:44,65-65, 15:16; Ac 15:18; Rom 8:28-30, 9:18; 1Pe 1:2; Eph 1:4-5,11, 2:4-10; 2Th 2:13; Rev 13:8, 17:8
NO: Matt 25:34-40; Luke 10:25-37; John 5:28-29; Rom 2:5-10; Jas 2:14-26
4. Is one who believes in God's son, but who has never repented, saved?
YES: John 3:15-16,36, 6:40,47, 11:25; Ac 16:31; Rom 10:9; 1Jo 5:12
NO: Luke 13:3,5
5. Is one who believes in God's son, but who has done no good deeds, saved?
YES: John 3:15-16,36, 6:40,47, 11:25; Ac 16:31; Rom 10:9; 1Jo 5:12
NO: Matt 25:41-46; John 5:28-29; Rom 2:5-10; Jas 2:14-26
6. Is one who is very moral and charitable, but who does not believe in God’s son, saved?
YES: Matt 19:16-17, 25:34-40,46; Mrk 10:17-21; Luke 10:25-37, 18:18-22; John 5:28-29, 8:51; Rom 2:5-7,10; Jas 2:24
NO: Luke 13:3,5
Note that NONE of these entails “minor differences”. If someone who refuses to accept Jesus Christ as Savior but is still moral and does good works, then the last set of quotations mre than supports his position.
In the end, despite all their bluster and rectitude, the fundies don't have a clue what the prescription for their own salvation is, since they haven't been able to sort out their own scriptures. They ought to at least do that before trying to proselytize the rest of us!
No comments:
Post a Comment