Is it possible to explain any contradiction?

Question

Biblical apologists say that although the Bible appears to conflict with itself, when properly understood, there is no contradiction.

Could someone give an example of any two sentences, claims, verses, passages (outside of the Bible) that couldn't be reconsiled with enough equivocation?

Although the first sentence is factually true, the second sentence is commenting on the immorality of self-promotion and mind games.

Humanity is the result of the direct act of evolution by a Supreme Creator

Answer 1

1. Humanity is the result of evolution.

2. Humanity is the result of the direct act of a Supreme Creator.

I'm not sure that these two can EVER be reconciled.

EDIT: I disagree; the Bible does not support the notion of evolution. You cannot inject factors into the mix that are clearly discounted by the text. Nice try, though.

Answer 2

"The LORD does not let the righteous go hungry but he thwarts the craving of the wicked."
- Proverbs 10:3

"I have seen something else under the sun:
The race is not to the swift
or the battle to the strong,
nor does food come to the wise
or wealth to the brilliant
or favor to the learned;
but time and chance happen to them all."
- Ecclesiastes 9:11

The book of Proverbs repeats again and again the traditional message of the Torah that the good are rewarded and the bad punished in this life while Ecclesiastes and Job consider this argument and reject it explicitly, saying that bad things happen to good people and vice verse all the time.

Can that contradiction be explained? Not if they are both to retain full inerrant power.

But I do not view the Bible or Christianity this way, as I see it the Jews grew more and more clear about God over time and Proverbs was supplanted by a different way of understanding the same God. Rather than contradiction I see growth.

Although if I were trying to win an argument on these grounds, I would simply point out that Jesus repeatedly tells crowds that those standing there would not die before the coming of the Son of Man and the last judgment (i.e. Matthew 16:28). Jesus was wrong about the central prophecy of his ministry.

This is not a problem for me, as I believe Jesus was fully human on earth and not a god disguised as a human, I believe he was a baby and learned to eat, talk, lace his sandals, not touch hot things, etc and that through the Gospels we see him grow. But if I viewed the Bible as infallible from cover-to-cover I would be hard-pressed to explani that one away.

Answer 3

Not always. Parts were written at different times by different people. They all have differnt views of God and it shows.

Trying to reconcile works written over a large period of time by different people is what causes translational 'errors.' Or as I like to say - great PR and marketing. They are trying to make ancient beliefs (old testament) jive with the new. You can't. That's why we still have Judaism.

There will be differences of opinion you cannot reconcile.

Take Paul and James for instance. Works vs. Faith.

Apologetics is useful but I think sometimes it always reduces biblical legitimacy rather than just being honest about it.

I'm sure I'll get a thumbs down by those who believe in biblical inerrancy, but I say that doctrine is idolatry.

Answer 4

I'm sorry, I don't have an answer, but I wanted to make a statement - in regards to Suzanne's statements...
" Humanity is the result of evolution.
Humanity is the result of the direct act of a Supreme Creator."

Couldn't they be reconciled by believing that the Creator created humanity to evolve? maybe I'm just dense.... I believe that there is a creator AND I believe in evolution...

Aw shuck... I just saw your add'l notes...

I think that the only time there is anything that CAN't be explained it is because we choose to look at it with an absolute mentality. With an open mind, anything is possible.

Answer 5

Extremely good question, because you're getting around to something that I consider fundamental: the self-contradictory and self-destructive nature of the rational faculty.

This is hard to explain, but let me try, using one of the standard models.

All "knowledge" can basically be expressed as the statement "Subject is predicate," or "S is P." But if that's the case, then the idea "P" is really implicit in the idea "S." And if that's not the case, then the statement is simply false.

So we're left with either a redundant, or a false, statement.

In order for the statement "S is P" to be intelligible, we have to define what we mean by "S" and "P." Take the statement "Grass is green." What do we mean by "grass" and "green"? The original statement of identity, "Grass is grass," obviously tells us nothing. We have to define "grass" in a series of other terms, each of which needs to be similarly defined, and of which "greenness" is only one example. And we never reach the end. It's like the child's question that leads to an infinity of other questions until you wonder why the hell you agreed to babysit your sister's damn kids.

So any statement we make is ultimately meaningless, because it depends for meaning on its relation to an infinite number of other statements, each of which is similarly co-dependent. And yet we still know what we mean when we say "grass is green." But that's just because the meaning is a matter of immediate intuition; it's not intellectual. We can't really capture reality in rational terms. Intellectual knowledge is just a rough and ready nexus of relative symbols.

So I suppose the point relative to your actual question...lol...is that it's always possible to rationally demonstrate the identity of anything if you go round the circle long enough. Even the formal proof "Black is white" is possible.

Sorry, I just drank a lot of coffee.

Answer 6

1. This sentence is true.
2. The first sentence is wrong.

Answer 7

For an extensive list of such contradictions, see:

Answer 8

1. There is only one truth.

2. There are many equally valid truths.

Answer 9

1. There's no such thing as a double positive
2. Yeah, right

Answer 10

Ummm...wouldn't oxymorons fit that bill?
Jumbo shrimp
Plastic glasses