Logical Errors in the Bible? Show me!

Great Debates
261

Fuel, here’s the issue as I understand it, with regard to “Q” and textual criticism of the Gospels in general:

  1. Matthew composes a gospel whose primary purpose is to Jesus as the expected Messiah, the fulfillment of OT prophecy. He’s very cautious to conform to Jewish scruples of the day, even substituting “Heaven” for “God” with reference to the Kingdom. He repeatedly tells of something Jesus or someone connected with Him did and then adds the line “This was to fulfill the prophecy of …” or the equivalent. In extremely rough outline, he has (1) an Infancy narrative focusing on Joseph, (2) an account of Jesus’s ministry including five long topical sermons preached by Jesus, (3) a Passion story, and (4) accounts of Resurrection appearances. Supposedly he wrote first.

  2. Mark composes a gospel extremely similar to Matthew’s in many ways, using “Kingdom of God” and focusing on what Jesus did. Well over 90% of Mark is in very close parallel to part 2 of Matthew – but omits the lion’s share of the teachings, including the five long topical sermons. The two men even use identical language for about 30% of their text. Mark differs in not having an Infancy Narrative and in having a quite different Passion story and Resurrection appearances. (These may of course not be contradictions but the result of different choices in what to tell.) Mark emphasizes Jesus as the Son of God and the idea that He doesn’t want people to know that He’s the promised Messiah yet.

  3. Luke produces a gospel superficially similar to Matthew’s. But his Infancy Narrative focuses on Mary, he has a differerent Passion story and Resurrection appearances, and most importantly, while he follows the Matthew/Mark outline of Jesus’s ministry, he places the stories that he and Matthew share (but Mark omits) in quite different places for the most part, and sometimes with quite different meanings based on the context. (My standard example is to contrast Matthew’s Parable of the Talents with Luke’s Parable of the Pounds.) Luke’s portrait of Jesus is a man with compassionate concern for the poor and the outcast, and very much against legalism.

The problems, then: Why would Mark, supposedly writing based on Peter’s reminiscences, produce a Reader’s Digest Condensed Matthew that slavishly copies much of the narrative but omits most of the teachings, diverging from Matthew’s outline only at the climax of the story? Why would Luke take the same teachings as in Matthew but place them in very different locations, and sometimes with different points? What exactly are the relationships of these three stories that tell the same narrative but with significant differences in detail and extremely different emphases?

I do have an answer that does not involve presuming a “Q” never spoken of by early Christian writers. But before I present it, I’d like to see what you and your father have to say about those questions.

262

A quote to prove what? I never, and I mean nevereverever claimed that you had used profanity. Can you provide me with even once cite- even one!- in which I claim that you used profanity?

Because right about now I’m starting to feel like your post, complete with its blatantly out-of-context quote, proves that you’re really not arguing in good faith.

263

I did not make an assertion about what the text of Luke does suggest but what it doesn’t. I’m not making an inference from the text I’m saying there is no reason to infer anything other than a plain reading in that particular passage. Luke said that the family returned to Jerusalem “when” the purification process was complete, which indicates that the return was made at that time and that there was no intervening time period or destination in between the purification and the return to Galilee. It is disingenuous, to say the least, to try to suggest that Luke is simply omitting a significant event for mysterious reasons. Argument from absence is not argument. A flat reading of both texts shows a prima facia contradiction.

That’s a nice hypothesis, now try to support it with evidence. I should remind you, though, that the gospel, itself, does not allege that the author of Luke interviewed apostles so I personally see no reason to try to rebut an assertion that the Bible does not make.

Q is from “Quelle,” which means “source” in German. Qumran was the site of the Essene community and is where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found.

Post whatever material you would still like me to address on Quirinius and I’ll see what I can do.

264

Fuel, in thinking over your behavior in this thread, I’ve decided that the truth must lie in one (or perhaps more) of the following three scenarios:

1.) You sometimes don’t write very clearly, but for some reason you can’t accept that you’re at fault when people misread you.

2.) You’re a fundamentalist who is out to convert people, and you’ve put on a sham appearance of being open-minded. (Given that you have described yourself as being God’s messenger sent to the SDMB to convert people, I really have to wonder.)

3.) You’re an internet pedophile/ephebophile, and threads like this are your weird way of cruising for kids to molest.

Frankly, I’m not sure which of those three is the right one, but I find it hard to believe that you’re being totally fair and honest with us.

265

Mark provides a narrative template for Luke and Q is embedded throughout. Here is an even handed overview of the Q theory from Religioustolerance.org which details it’s locations in Luke.

266

This post:

You said I used profanity right here, Bud. I even underlined it for you. Dude, alls I gots to say is that you have got some serious problems. Go get yourself checked out. I have never had someone be so blatantly ridiculous to me on the SDMB.

267

Ben
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you forgot that you said that I used profanity. I am a reasonable person. But to imply that I am a sick person of some sorts, after you made a really stupid mistake, is totally out of line. I hope you and everyone else here realizes this.

268

[symbol]auth apografh prwth eyeneto hgemoneuontos ths Zurias Kurhviou.[/symbol]

269

Ick, hit post instead of preview.

The [ symbol ] mode does not allow for diacritical marks
[symbol]auth apografh prwth eyeneto hgemoneuontos ths Zurias Kurhviou.[/symbol]
The accents are
[symbol]auth [/symbol] acute over the upsilon
[symbol]apografh[/symbol] unaspirate over the leading alpha, grave over the final eta
[symbol]prwth[/symbol] acute over the omega
[symbol]eyeneto[/symbol] unaspirate over the leading epsilon, acute over the second epsilon
[symbol]hgemoneuontos[/symbol] Aspirate over the initial eta, acute over the upsilon
[symbol]ths[/symbol] circumflex over the eta
[symbol]Zurias[/symbol] acute over the iota
[symbol]Kurhviou[/symbol] acute over the iota

270

Fuel,

Try a basic argument that doesn’t require translation confusions, dates, documents and books that people may not have the time to find or read.

Malachi 3:6 says “For I am the LORD, I change not”.

How exactly does the Lord do anything if the Lord does not change? Is this some kind of joke?

I suppose that one could interpret this to mean, “I change nothingness into somethingness.”

Which vaguely translates as “I create something/anything/everything from nothing.”

Which reduces to, “I intentionally created myself from nothing.”

Now since there is no such thing as “intent” in the set of nothing, this argument for the reliability of Gods word comes into question.

There is no logic on this earth, that I know of, that can find validity or soundness from the reduction of:

“I intentionally created myself and all things from nothing at all”

One way that the Lord could get around this dilema is in the first interpretation of, “I change not”, that I submitted at the beginning of this post.

If the Lord ceases to change after uttering this statement, there is an argument that the Lord is telling the truth. However, if the Lord actually does cease to change after uttering this statement, then how is the Lord going to render judgement on judgement day?

271

If God is changeless, how could He have a conversation or a relationship with anyone – or for that matter, how could He DO anything, as doing requires change?

272

-Would it be better if it were phrased “I’ll believe anything as long as the Bible says (or implies) it’s true”?

Or how about “I’ll believe anything the Bible says as long as I can interpret it to fit what I already believe”?

There’s a lot of that goin’ on here…

I cannot help but read that and recall a Simpsons quote where Ned Flanders is praying and says somthing like he’s followed everything in the Bible, even the parts that contradict the other parts, and how he’s even stayed Kosher ‘just to be on the safe side’.

What is it about the book that inspires such abject fear?

273

[pedantry=insufferable]Sorry for the nitpick but it’s not too often I get to be a spelling cop in Greek. You mispelled [symbol]egeneto[/symbol] as [symbol]eyeneto[/symbol]. That should have been a gamma not a psi.[/pedantry]

Transliteration of the passage in question:
aute apographe prote egeneto hegemoneuontos tes Syrias kyrenios

Slave translation (word by word):

“This census [the] first happened [while] was governing/being governor of Syria Quirinius.”

Translation rendered into English syntax:
“This first census happened while Quirinius was governing/being governor of Syria.”

274

Guys, God does not change his personality, his essence, his motives, his plan, his love, his promises, ect.

However we perceive that God changed because he did this in Samuel or did that in Jeremiah is irrelevant because we cannot see the grand scheme, we have our heads in the forest, God’s head is above the trees.

275

Oh man. I hope you weren’t being serious about quoting Flander’s! I hope you don’t let the writer of a cartoon affect your perception of reality!

I assure you, we Christians are not as blind as you make us out to be. We are all of the same intelligence, discernment and logic, it’s just that Christians tend to be the humans who don’t mind giving a little faith in order to get in on a good deal. We just see a better life in Christ. It’s that simple. Christians, for the most part, aren’t some whacko group of pide-piper (sp?) followers, although those individuals undoubtedly do exist I’m sad to say.

To answer your question, it’s not fear in the same sense as you know it. It’s fear of doing/not doing what you know you shouldn’t/should do. It’s fear of letting down your Father and Lord. It’s fear of the punishment/instruction you might have to endure in order to be molded into a better Christian.

It’s not fear of unfruitful pain and suffering. It’s not a hopeless fear.

276

Thanks. I was so busy looking for the correct characters for phi and eta that I forgot to proof my simple keystroke errors of y for g. (I hate [ symbol ].)

277

I’ve spent a lot of time trying to figure which damn letter makes what myself. If you ever figure out how to code breathings let me know.

278

“However we percieve that God changed, is irrelevant…”

Yet you conclude the relevence that God exists. Where, exactly, in all of the irrelevance, does one conclude that God wants us to eat food or drink water?

Many of the items in Gods great laundry list leave ambiguity where clarity matters most.
example:
‘You’re not supposed to commit suicide or starve to death or eat, but actually, if you understand the Bible, you do eat, because you have faith that Gods ambiguity interprets as your selfish needs being fulfilled.’

This pattern of:

‘Neither, nor and not neither nor or both and either… YET!
Obviously, you’re supposed to do this, and obviously this is true…’

You claim independance from the loop of logic with respect to God, but don’t address the factual realities of what certain behaviors entail, behaviors that you decide to ignore after you have discarded logic, even though there is technichally no logical reason any more to discard them!

279

Nonsense to you. That’s YOUR definition of faith. Mine goes very close to the first lines of Fides et Ratio : Faith and Reason are the wings with which the human spirit flies. Your definition of faith is closer to mine of stupidity.

So, to get my facts straight. Science is your faith which requires nos external evidence to be proven; unless you tell me you can prove science outside science.

I agree with Fuel, we’ve gone WAY off course. Maybe this whole Q thing calls for a new thread, since it only has secondary importance to the topic.

I also think we’ve reached a dead end.

280

**

I never said you used profanity. Your own quote proves it:

“BTW, Fuel, how can you go around making accusations that people aren’t of sound mind? You youself have completely failed to address many of the arguments presented here, avoid using profanity, and behave in a mature fashion overall.”

In other words, you have failed to address many of the arguments and behave in a mature fashion. Therefore, even though you have avoided using profanity, you have still failed to address many of the arguments presented here, avoid using profanity, and behave in a mature fashion overall.

Nonsense. I never implied any such thing. I merely stated that the truth was one of three scenarios. I never said that the “Fuel is a pedophile” scenario was even remotely plausible, though. It doesn’t have to be, because it’s merely one of three, and I never claimed all three were true.

Let’s compare this with your earlier statement, when you claimed to speak for God:

**
When Diogenes pointed out that it was rude of you to assume that Apos hadn’t read the Bible, you tut-tutted thusly:

**

When I criticised you, you again tut-tutted that people were too quick to misinterpret you:

**

The obvious (that you are not a pedophile trolling for victims, and that you plainly have used no profanity) need not be verified or questioned. The obvious is just that… obvious.

If there are two ways to interpret a sentence, shouldn’t you give me the benefit of the doubt?

As DtC, Tomndebb, and I have all pointed out, the simple fact of the matter is that you accused Apos of not having read or understood the Bible. You may not have meant to do that, but that’s what you wrote. Our interpretation of your post was perfectly natural, and your tortured interpretation was unnatural.

Nonetheless, you refused to accept that we had made a natural reading of a poorly-written post. So I decided to prove the point by turning the tables. And you know what? Our way of reading things came so naturally to you that it didn’t even occur to you that you might be walking into a trap. Even when I challenged you on your interpretation, and wrote another, more ludicrous post paralleling your accusation against Apos, you still didn’t apply your own logic- despite having said that it was “unbelievable” that DtC would interpret your post in the way you interpreted mine. And it still never occurred to you to give me the very same benefit of the doubt which you sniffed that we were unwilling to give you.

As I’ve said before, I think you owe a lot of apologies to the people in this thread, both collectively and individually.