VoVoDoCo wrote:Punished UMN wrote:
1) is easily explainable by the fact that not all of the Apostles were present at the Crucifixion and were therefore relying on different witnesses, and 2) is easily explainable by the likelihood that information was added to the gospels later, possibly by multiple authors.
3) It's not gatekeeping to ask that they use the same criterion as scholars.
1&2. I agree those are reasonable explanations when we assume it written by fallible human beings. But then were the many debates that took place during the early church to make sure that the we canonized the right scriptures ultimately in vain? We don't know many of the authors, and even the ones we actually have good reason to claim knowledge of authorship (namely Paul's letters) aren't without opposition. So how do we know they're trustworthy at all? It's been known for a long time that the bible hasn't had its long life without being adulterated. What level of certainty can we have in the texts?
So you're right. The idea that the books were written by fallible human beings does explain some discrepancies. But that doesn't strengthen the case for Christianity. It leaves it just as weak. The two main positions are:
A. The bible is god inspired.
B. The bible is a collection of observations and beliefs (of which we have no clear evidence as to how faithful they are to the original source material) of imperfect (largely anonymous) people who's writings have clearly been corrupted.
A is troublesome if we are to believe that God would get details mixed up. B is troublesome if my eternity is at stake and I might burn in hell for not being convinced by contradictory testimonies of unknown authors. Just because contradictions can be cleared up (which tbh you haven't actually cleared them up, you've just given a possible explanation for the contradictions not definitive evidence but it doesn't really matter) doesn't mean that the theology is cleared up.
3. I agree. But you didn't ask anybody to use the same criterion as sources. You just said "X sources are not reliable sources of scholarly textual criticism. Most of the 'contradictions' listed are easily explainable."
Who's "they" when you say, "they (should) use the same criterion as scholars?" You mean Rationalwiki and Skeptic's Annotated should use use the same criterion? Do you have a preferred criterion? Those specific sources horizontal reading, which is common in scholarly circles to compare texts. Or do you mean that the people (including myself sadface.jpeg) using them as sources should use the same criterion as scholars? Because I've done that in the past, I just didn't in that post. I don't think that's a big deal, since I was just posting a list of contradictions to see what people think. Again, those contradictions are not a problem to people who don't believe the bible is irrerant, but that leads me to objections that go beyond contradictions.
A and B are not mutually exclusive.
3) What I'm trying to say is that many of the "contradictions" both use are well-known and explained by scholars.