1,129
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 3:
Line 3: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia:Is the Bible Inerrant? (view source)
Revision as of 00:07, April 6, 2007
, 00:07, April 6, 2007restoring lost material (with minor wikifying)
== Types of alleged contradictions ==
Claims of contradictions in the Bible may fall into one of a number of common types.
===Mismatched lists===
Different authors might each list people, words, or events that do not correspond exactly. However, in most cases, none of the authors claim that their lists are exhaustive, so items missing from one list that are on another list is not in itself a contradiction.
===Omitted details===
One author might mention details of an event that another author omits, with the sceptic claiming that if it really happened, both authors would have mentioned it. This "argument from silence" is logically invalid, and usually ignores possible reasons for a given author not mentioning those details, particularly as each author generally had a particular purpose or audience in mind when writing.
===Differing languages or reference points===
One author might mention details using one language, clock, calendar, etc., while another might mention the same details using a different language, clock, calendar, etc.
===Genuine contradictions===
One author might give details that flatly contradict another. Only careful examination of the texts (independently of personal preconceptions or conjecture) can decide whether or not this is the case.
== Contradictions need to be proved ==
Apologists might often disagree as to how an apparent contradiction is to be best explained, due to nobody knowing for sure what the correct explanation is - whether merely circumstantial or a case of genuine contradiction. However, for a sceptic to ''prove'' the charge of contradiction, the onus is on him to eliminate all possible realistic explanations. The onus is not on the apologist to know which possible explanation is correct. By the same token, however, neither is it legitimate for the apologist to insist that any given explanation ''must'' be correct merely because it fits his or her preconceptions or has been argued by highly selective commentators with similar views. Indeed, the persistent citing of such commentators is liable to lead to an unresolvable 'battle of the commentators' that is likely to leave the general reader (who is in no position to judge the merits of the various commentators) just as nonplussed as before. True, the fact that there is a possible explanation means that the charge of contradiction may fail, depending on the inherent likelihood of the explanation. On the other hand, an unreasonably large number of not-very-likely or highly conjectural explanations may cast doubt on the apologist's case.
== Contradictions need to be proved ==
== Contradictions need to be proved ==