Apparent or Alleged Contradctions was Re: Packing my bags!!!
Achilles achillesz@usa.net
Sat, 13 Feb 1999 17:36:40 -0500 (00918967000, 22345656920455@unifour.com)
On 13 Feb 99, at 20:32, Matthew Bell wrote:
> > Achilles
> >
> > Gen 2:17 (direct quote from YHVH Elohim)
> > But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of
> > it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
> >
> > Gen 3:6
> > And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was
> > pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she
> > took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband
> > with her; and he did eat
> >
> > Gen 5:3-5
> > And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own
> > likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth: And the days of
> > Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons
> > and daughters: And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and
> > thirty years: and he died.
>
> Matthew Bell
> Well I guess that's that. All these years studying the Bible and I missed
> such a blatant and obvious contradiction. Sigh how could I have been so
> blind! Where now? Ah I know, the errancy3 list. 2000 years of Christianity
> and not one apologist spotted such an obvious contradiction which makes
> God a liar!! Achilles, you are a genius, now come back when you have a
> serious point to make.
Apparent Contradictions are the Worst Kind
For most Evangelicals the Bible is a harmonious source book for doctrine. It
yields "propositions" representative of "didactic thought models" (Pinnock)
which when put together coherently form a normative system of doctrine.
Theology renders explicit in orderly doctrines the truth implicit in the Word
of God. It experssed logically the truths which are set forth chronologically
in the Bible.... All the data of scripture are relevant data, the raw material
of theological models.... The exegesis of Scripture thus has absolute priority
over all systems. Systems which fail to fit the data are to be dismantled. A
faulty theological system is one which cannot satisfy the biblical evidence....
(Pinnock). [9]
The focus on scripture's authority here seems to be on the statements appearing
in an inspired text. This is evidenced by the very term "propositional
revelation," as well as by the distinction sometimes drawn to the effect that a
biblical writer is infallible only when he writes, not otherwise. This is a
parallel to the infallibility of the Pope speaking ex cathedra, and for
obviously similiar apologetical reasons. Instead of gifted or inspired
personalities, the important thing for the Evangelical is the inspired text.
Otherwise, the endless haranguing about the alleged fact and nature of
"plenary, verbal" inspiration as opposed to "conceptual" or some other kind of
inspiration would make no sense.
The locus of authority in the text is also to be distinguished from a focus on
the subject matter of the text. For example, Gerhard Maier deplores the
distinction first made by Semler between the text of scripture and the Word of
God.[10] Instead, the Word of God should be identified with the text of
scripture. Evangelicals ceaselessly protested the Neo-Orthodox claim that the
Bible "contained" or "became" the Word of God. No, they said, the text is the
revealed "Word of God written." "What scripture says, God says."
With this estimation of the scriptural text, hermeneutics would seem to consist
of little more than exegesis. To be believed a statement need only appear in
the text, at least theoretically. The recognition of theological disunity in
the Bible would be absolutely fatal to such an understanding. Two "inspired"
but contradictory statements would neutralize each other and would take the
criterion of authority (i.e., the presence of a statement in the text) with
them. "If all inspiration guarantees us is that we get viewpoints that are
contradictory, which ones are we to believe and how are we to know who is
right, and who is wrong?" (Lindsell). [11] This is why all "apparent
contradictions" are harmonized. "As for the principle of harmony, this... is
dictated by the doctrine of inspiration, which tells us that the Scriptures are
the products of a single divine mind." "Scripture should not be set against
Scripture.... The expectation for this principle is the expectation that the
teaching of the God of truth will prove to be consistent with itself" (Packer).
[12] "Scripture is in agreement with itself. God who is eternal truth does not
contradict Himself." (Pinnock).[13] "Inasmuch as all Scripture is the product
of a single divine mind, interpretation must stay within the bounds of the
analogy of Scripture and eschew hypotheses that would correct on Biblical
passage by another...." (Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy).[14] "[Our]
utter trust in Scripture-- in all that it teaches-- must govern the
interpreter's practice, thus eliminating in principle any interpretation which
sees the biblical texts as... self-contradictory" (Montgomery). [15] "We would
assert... that there is no disagreement [e.g.] between Paul and James, and that
such a principle of theological diversity destroys the doctrine of inspiration
completely" (Ranald MacAulay and Jerram Barrs). [16]
Evangelical theologians profess to use the grammatico-historical method in
discovering the straightforward meaning of texts since it is this "plain sense"
of all texts that is to be believed. Yet it is obvious from the above
statements that they are not free to do so. "Less clear" (i.e., theologically
troublesome) texts may require "broader interpretation" (Montgomery) in the
light of "more clear" texts. Evangelicals point out that if one recognized a
"real contradiction" between two texts, both could not be believed, and an
extra-biblical criterion of some sort would have to be employed in order to
decide which one to believe. They think they avoid this trap by hiding behind
"apparent" contradictions. Yet ironically it is just this kind of contradiction
which must destroy a notion of biblical authority based on the "apparent" or
"plain" sense of the text! The moment one admits that the "apparent" meaning of
Text A cannot be accepted since it would conflict with Text B, one has
surrendered the criterion of biblical authority, i.e., that the plain sense of
any and all texts is normative. Thus "apparent contradictions" are actually
fatal to the Evangelical schema, whereas "real contradictions" (whatever that
would mean) are irrelevant!
"Beyond Born Again: Towards Evangelical Maturity" is copyright © 1993 by Robert
M. Price. All rights reserved.
The electronic version is copyright ©1997 by Internet Infidels with the written
permission of Robert M. Price.
The entire text is available at
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/beyond_born_again/