If there are no contradictions

[David_Young]

Having seen a lot of ways people try to ‘harmonise’ contradictions, I’m left with this question: What is a contradiction?

For me the answer is quite simple, but if you are of the persuasion that the Bible genuinely has no contradictions, perhaps you could demonstrate something.

Could you provide two sentences in English which, as far as you are concerned, contradict? They can be about any subject, but it would probably be easier to avoid subjects related to the Bible or religion. The more mundane the better.

I think it would be quite easy to apply something parallel to Christian apologetic to every such contradiction to demonstrate that they are “not” contradictions. Whether you find the argument convincing though is another matter.

So with that in mind, could someone suggest a contradiction?

 

[NotWorthy]

The Earth is a spherical object filled with glowing magma in the middle, spinning on its axis roughly once a day, and it orbits around the sun in an elliptical pattern.

The earth is a flat disk that sits on the back of four giant elephants. The god, Apollo, travels around the earth each day in his fiery chariot.

 

[David_Young]

It’s flat in the sense of ‘appears flat’ but the speaker thinks the audience won’t be able to understand it. Compare similar commentary on whether Yahweh can be persuaded by human intercession or not.

The God Appollo does indeed travel around the earth in his fiery chariot, but the outward appearance of this chariot is that of a relatively unmoving star. Compare the contradiction of transubstantiation.

 

[JBautista]

David Young is old
David Young is young

 

[thistle]

It’s flat in the sense of ‘appears flat’ but the speaker thinks the audience won’t be able to understand it. Compare similar commentary on whether Yahweh can be persuaded by human intercession or not.

The God Appollo does indeed travel around the earth in his fiery chariot, but the outward appearance of this chariot is that of a relatively unmoving star. Compare the contradiction of transubstantiation.

If you want to know about transubstantiation then read this:

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0501clas.asp

 

[David_Young]

Old by comparison to something young and young by comparison to something old.

Compare ‘God is patient’ versus Ananias and Sapphira.

 

[Liberian]

David Young is old
David Young is young

J Bautista,

Hello and welcome to the Catholic Answers Forums. I hope you have a blessed and fruitful time here.

Your post reminds me of something I heard about a Miss Mann marrying a Mr. Groome. On that day, she was a Mann, a woman, a bride, and a Groome.

The problem, I think, is that many statements can be reinterpreted in such a way as to remove an apparent contradiction. For example, “David Young is young” could be taken to mean (with enough “interpretation”) to mean that he belongs to the Young family. This sort of thing is true about most statements one makes in everyday life.

If you want a simple contradiction, I suggest that we switch to the language of mathematics:

1 + 1 = 2
1 + 1 = 3

Of these two statements, one is definitely wrong. Another example might be Euclid’s Fifth Postulate, which says that given a line that extends infinitely far in both directions and a point that is not on the line, there is only one line (also extending infinitely far in both directions) which can be drawn through the point and which will not touch the original line. The two statements would then be:

Euclid’s Fifth Postulate is true.
Euclid’s Fifth Postulate is false.

The wild part about these two statements is that neither one is universally true or false. If you go with the first statement, you get one kind of geometry (Euclidean geometry). If you go with the second statement, you get a different kind of geometry (non-Euclidean geometry).

• Liberian

 

[David_Young]

One ox and one ox are two oxen.
One ox and one brace of oxen are three oxen.

…in Euclidean/non-Euclidean geometry.

Of course what I am doing here is adding things that the author of the original might not have meant. The trouble is, we don’t know if the commentary added to a text to remove a contradiction is what the original author(s) meant either. In its absence, it is a perfectly legitimate position to state that it is full of contradictions.

 

[Guardian]

Having seen a lot of ways people try to ‘harmonise’ contradictions, I’m left with this question: What is a contradiction?

For me the answer is quite simple, but if you are of the persuasion that the Bible genuinely has no contradictions, perhaps you could demonstrate something.

Could you provide two sentences in English which, as far as you are concerned, contradict? They can be about any subject, but it would probably be easier to avoid subjects related to the Bible or religion. The more mundane the better.

I think it would be quite easy to apply something parallel to Christian apologetic to every such contradiction to demonstrate that they are “not” contradictions. Whether you find the argument convincing though is another matter.

So with that in mind, could someone suggest a contradiction?

I think the flaw in this exercise neglects that the Scripture we have today is errant. It probably does contradict in some instances, as God never guaranteed that every monk that copied the Scriptures would be infallible.

Another thing to note is that almost everything can be “explained” away.

Even the contradiction: 1 + 1 = 2, and 1 + 1 = 3.

If the definition of “1” equals the numeric “1” in equation “1 + 1 = 2” and the definition of “1” equals the numeric “2” in equation “1 + 1 = 3”, then there is no contradiction. After all, maybe we are reading two different equations from two different mathematical systems. “1 = 2”, “2 = 3” and so forth.

 

[Scottgun]

I tend not to say stuff like there are no contradictions and rather look for specific instances where someone says passage x contradicts passage *y *and the explanations are either reasonable or unreasonable. The problem is that skeptics tend to use the same wooden *Sola Scriptura *hermeneutic that fundamentalists use.

Scott

 

[mlchance]

The problem is that skeptics tend to use the same wooden *Sola Scriptura *hermeneutic that fundamentalists use.

Hit the nail on the head. Skeptics are biblical fundamentalists skeptical of everything but their ability to know better than everyone else what the Bible really means.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

One ox and one ox are two oxen.
One ox and one brace of oxen are three oxen.

…in Euclidean/non-Euclidean geometry.

Of course what I am doing here is adding things that the author of the original might not have meant. The trouble is, we don’t know if the commentary added to a text to remove a contradiction is what the original author(s) meant either. In its absence, it is a perfectly legitimate position to state that it is full of contradictions.

Strictly speaking, there is no contradiction that can’t be harmonized. What we have to do is determine if it is reasonable to conclude that the harmonization fits with the author’s intent.

“David’s sole intent at CAF was to politely discuss Catholicism.”

“David’s sole intent at CAF was to impolitely discuss Catholicism.”

We have what appears to be a contradiction. If David has only one intention it must be one or the other. What a Davidist apologist might argue is that according to David’s view of his intent, he came to politely discuss Catholicism. This apologist may then argue that the other statement is how others at CAF viewed his intent; that he came not to discuss their faith but to bash it. Is this a correct harmonization of the contradiction? We can not know with complete certainty unless the writer (me) is here to explain it. Of course, I think David is here to discuss things politely, but let us assume that the harmonization provided for the statements is what I meant. How can we become reasonably sure without my presence? The only way would be to view the statements in context with the verses surrounding them. Let us now assume that these two statements are part of a larger statement:

“In the year of our lord 2007, there came a man named David to the Catholic Answers Forum. David’s sole intent at CAF was to politely discuss Catholicism. Despite the sincerity of David’s heart, there were those who doubted him, believing that David’s sole intent at CAF was to impolitely discuss Catholicism.”

From this paragraph, we can discern with reasonable certainty that the harmonization that the apologist of our friend David is correct. This is how we harmonize Scripture. We must look not only at two seemingly contradictory passages, but at the passages surrounding them and in the whole Bible, as well as the traditions of the Church. By doing this we can determine, with reasonable certainty, if the harmonization provided is in line with the author’s intent.