Bible and SoD

[Surlethe]

Quite simple: approaching the KJV Bible from a strict suspension of disbelief point of view, how do you rationalize the contradictions within the text?

[EmperorSolo51]

Quite simple: approaching the KJV Bible from a strict suspension of disbelief point of view, how do you rationalize the contradictions within the text?

I personally would not use the King James Version as it is an inferior Translation to the NIV and NAB Bibles.

[Darth Servo]

Depends on the kind of contradiction. If one verse is describing an event while the other is philosophical rambling, you go with the first.

[Jew]

Quite simple: approaching the KJV Bible from a strict suspension of disbelief point of view, how do you rationalize the contradictions within the text?

As EmperorSolo51 states, it would be unwise to rely solely on the KJV. Any biblical scholar understands that the true meaning of the text is present in the original text, which is written in Hebrew and Greek. To rely on a translation--any translation--is a mistake. Meaning is always lost in translation.

But even when we go back to the original text, there are apparent contradictions. Let's take a look at a few of them. To begin with, who killed King Saul?

According to 1 Samuel 31:4, Saul committed suicide: "Saul took his sword and fell on it." However, according to 2 Samuel 1:9, an Amalekite killed Saul: "So I [an Amalekite] stood beside [Saul] and killed him." Clearly these cannot both be true. Either Saul killed himself, or the Amalekite killed Saul. This is an easy contradiction to solve: the Amalekite was lying because he thought he might get a reward for killing Saul. (As it turned out, he got executed for the crime of regicide--a crime he did not commit.) There is actually a third place in the Bible where it mentions that the Philistines killed Saul. This is true too, in a way: Saul committed suicide rather than be captured and killed by the Philistines, so in a way the Philistines did cause his death.

Not all apparent contradictions are this easy to resolve. For example, how many men in Israel's army? 2 Samuel says 800,000 in Israel and 500,000 in Judah, but 1 Chronicles says 1,100,000 in Israel and 470,000 in Judah. Why the contradiction? We don't know, but it could be because the 800,000 figure refers to "battle-seasoned" troops and the 1,100,000 figure includes inexperienced men of fighting age. No contradiction at all: the two historians merely decided to highlight different sets of figures. This is conjecture, but it's logical enough to make sense. [ More information ]

Here's one more: 2 Kings 24 verse 8 (KJV) says: "Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months." But 2 Chronicles 36 verse 9 (KJV) says: "Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD." This contradiction can be resolved one of two ways: either the copyists mis-copied the manuscripts and introduced a "typographical" error at some early date, or (more likely, in my personal opinion) Jehoiachin ruled for 10 years as a co-regent (from 8 to 18 years of age) and then was the sole king for only 3 months. Co-regencies were common back then. [ More information ]

[Surlethe]

I just chose the KJV out of a hat because it's the most well-known, and the one the fundies generally use. You could choose any version; the point of the thread is to delve into the thought process of how, exactly, would one rationalize those contradictions?

[chaoschristian]

In order to do this one would have to employ a literist interpretation of the text - which to me is one huge mistake.

The Bible is not a novel, it is a collection of different kinds of literature created over a broad expanse of time. Each part of it must be carefully interpreted with historical and cultural context in mind.

Were there particular contraditions that the OP had specifically in mind?

[Surlethe]

In order to do this one would have to employ a literist interpretation of the text - which to me is one huge mistake.

Mistake or not, that was rather to be the point of the exercise.

Were there particular contraditions that the OP had specifically in mind?

None in particular, but the existence of Biblical contradictions is rather well-known: two creations in Genesis; radically different behavior of God in OT and NT, e.g.

[Darth Wong]

In order to do this one would have to employ a literist interpretation of the text - which to me is one huge mistake.

The Bible is not a novel, it is a collection of different kinds of literature created over a broad expanse of time. Each part of it must be carefully interpreted with historical and cultural context in mind.

Were there particular contraditions that the OP had specifically in mind?

The fact that Moses supposedly wrote the entire Pentateuch even though it describes his death is pretty bad, but there are plenty of others. And of course, it's even harder to rationalize it with real-life (to take one prominent example; there is not a shred of evidence for the Biblical Exodus of several million Jews from Egypt across the desert. No campsites, no burial grounds, nothing. Millions of people moving across the desert without a trace. For that matter, it is virtually impossible for such a large group to have made that journey at all. The larger the group, the more difficult it is to move long distances through difficult terrain, especially when you consider food requirements).

There's also the fact that different books in the New Testament have Jesus saying different things at the end when he's up on the cross.

[Battlehymn Republic]

There's also the fact that different books in the New Testament have Jesus saying different things at the end when he's up on the cross.

Would the different Gospel writers having heard his death-cries differently make the Bible errant?

I have no idea who sets the criteria and how they decide it.

[chaoschristian]

Within a strict SoD rule set:

One could perhaps argue that God and Satan are beings of EQUAL strengths and status, but of opposite alignments. And that the Bible was equally influenced in its creation through both agents. God in an attempt to reveal glory, truth, goodness, et al inspired earthly authors to record the deeds, history and moral composition of a chosen people on the road to salvation. Satan, however, used the fallibility of these same authors and later editors, to add and compound mistakes - thus making sure that the true glory and path to salvation would forever be obscured from man.

Is that the kind of the thing the OP is after?

[Battlehymn Republic]

That's dualism, like Manicheanism, isn't it? The whole point of Satan is that he was created by God, and rebelled. He is not equal to God strengthwise, considering God was able to defeat him in human form through His own death.

These discussions would be much less angry and bitter if they were treated as the same as any fantasy universe you debate on. Excepting, of course, that people actually take this seriously.

[chaoschristian]

That's dualism, like Manicheanism, isn't it? The whole point of Satan is that he was created by God, and rebelled. He is not equal to God strengthwise, considering God was able to defeat him in human form through His own death.

I understand that. And as I said, this was to be viewed through a strict SoD perspective, as the OP wanted. I did not say it would be theologically correct. In fact, one has to give theological correctness a rest just to think about this topic, let alone write about it.

These discussions would be much less angry and bitter if they were treated as the same as any fantasy universe you debate on. Excepting, of course, that people actually take this seriously.

These discussion would be much less angry and bitter if the people who participated in them weren't so insecure about their own beliefs as to allow postings on a BBS to effect them. At the end of the day if one disagrees with Mike Wong (to make him a symbolic representative of what goes on here) then walk away. But don't bust a vein over it. Too many other important things to get righteously angry over. But then that's it - isn't it? People coming here with self-righteous anger to vent. And self-righteousness is foolish. And SD.net does not suffer fools kindly.

[Surlethe]

Is that the kind of the thing the OP is after?

Yes. That is the sort of thing I was trying to get.

These discussions would be much less angry and bitter if they were treated as the same as any fantasy universe you debate on. Excepting, of course, that people actually take this seriously.

That is what I'm trying to accomplish here: treat the Bible like a fantasy universe we're debating, and everything in the Bible is canon, just as Star Wars movies are canon when we're debating SW v ST.

[Darth Wong]

These discussions would be much less angry and bitter if they were treated as the same as any fantasy universe you debate on.

Oh really? Guess what happens on this board to a fan-whore who defends something even if it doesn't make any sense.

That's all Christian apologists are: the ultimate fan-whores.

[General Zod]

These discussions would be much less angry and bitter if they were treated as the same as any fantasy universe you debate on. Excepting, of course, that people actually take this seriously.

You might have a valid point, except that no fantasy universe has ever been responsible for the massacre of hundreds of thousands before, and generally trampling on human rights. So people are inclined to be bitter and angry

[Darth Wong]

Actually, Christian fundamentalists get a much easier ride here than fanboys of any other fiction.

Think about it: suppose a TrekBorg fanboy came in talking about the Borg, touting "high-end" (read: utter bullshit) claims about their capabilities. Now imagine that someone else naturally retorts with incidents such as the cube in STFC being destroyed with nowhere near 70% of its structure being gone, or drones being consistently killed with physical impacts, or the Queen being unable to "adapt" to plasma coolant despite exact knowledge of what it was and plenty of warning time, etc.

Now suppose the TrekBorg fanboy retorts by saying that we cannot know the true nature of the Borg because the Collective is beyond mere mortal comprehension, so there is no reason why we can't still say that they would adapt to become immune to any weapon despite those incidents. Let us further suppose that after a few exchanges, he declares that Trek doesn't actually have to make sense, so it's pointless to use logic to debunk his arguments. This person would get his ass banned for being a "wall of ignorance" fucktard.

A Christian fundie who exhibits this sort of behaviour will actually get a longer leash than a fanboy of some sci-fi or fantasy series that is freely admitted to be fictional.

[SirNitram]

Anyone thinking Fantasy worlds getting the SoD treatment don't cause bitterness and flamewars was clearly not here for the grand flame-pits of the Tech vs. Magic debates before Fantasy was made and the three moderators installed. Ah, Mount Doom and it's magic liquid lava..

Anyway, treating the Bible under SoD basically tells us it was written by alot of people with vastly different interpretations or agendas as they wrote. You come away with a very weak God most of the time, except in Genesis, which really doesn't make a lick of sense anyways.

You also find out that modern man would be capable of being his own Salvation, if I remember the Job Challenge right.

[chaoschristian]

DW wrote:

That's all Christian apologists are: the ultimate fan-whores.

So, no Jesus vs Palpatine on the heights of Golgotha threads, hmmm?

[SirNitram]

DW wrote:

That's all Christian apologists are: the ultimate fan-whores.

So, no Jesus vs Palpatine on the heights of Golgotha threads, hmmm?

Would be surprised if I told you 'been there, locked that'? Enigma is rather famous for arguing Jesus can win any battle by summoning relativistic angels.

[chaoschristian]

Would be surprised if I told you 'been there, locked that'? Enigma is rather famous for arguing Jesus can win any battle by summoning relativistic angels.

Well, I'll search out those threads.

I was musing over a few different scenerios, but I see its better to keep it to myself.

[Jew]

In order to do this one would have to employ a literist interpretation of the text - which to me is one huge mistake.

Mistake or not, that was rather to be the point of the exercise.

What do you mean when you are asking for a literal interpretation of the text? The extreme end of literal interpretation would be to take each and every word literally. This would be utter foolishness: the Psalms are poetry, not literal accounts of actual events. Songs of Songs is a love poem, not a book of history. To take those parts of the Scripture as word-for-word literal accounts would be to throw common sense to the wind.

Clearly, the Bible must be interpreted in context as the ancient Israelites would have viewed it. They would have understood the poetry of Psalms and Song of Songs, so therefore we can interpret those as poetry too.

So now we're back to a more reasonable interpration philosophy: what did it mean to the people at the time it was written? I believe that is the best way to address any apparent contradictions in the text. Consider what it meant to the people at the time, and figure out if they would view it as a true contradiction. Many of the contradictions that we notice today would probably not concern the ancient Israelites. They had a different and a different expectation about the text: for example, they didn't expect a history book to be totally accurate about numbers of soldiers. To them, the symbolism of the numbers was more important than the strict accuracy.

Viewed in that light, which I believe can still be considered a 'literal' interpretation of the Bible, many contradictions and problems in the text can be addressed. Certainly not all of them, but many. That is the way I would suggest all sacred scriptures in any religion be interpreted and studied.

[Surlethe]

In order to do this one would have to employ a literist interpretation of the text - which to me is one huge mistake.

Mistake or not, that was rather to be the point of the exercise.

What do you mean when you are asking for a literal interpretation of the text? The extreme end of literal interpretation would be to take each and every word literally. This would be utter foolishness: the Psalms are poetry, not literal accounts of actual events. Songs of Songs is a love poem, not a book of history. To take those parts of the Scripture as word-for-word literal accounts would be to throw common sense to the wind.

Let me reiterate: the purpose of this thought exercise is not to develop a viable interpretation of Scripture; rather, apply the methods we use when looking at Star Wars, Star Trek, or any science fiction or fantasy series, to the Bible. That's what I meant when in the OP

...approaching the KJV Bible from a strict suspension of disbelief point of view, how do you rationalize the contradictions within the text?

If taking every word literally leads to untenable contradictions, you can approach it as what it meant to the people at the time; but only insofar as that is required to get the big contradictions out of the way. I'm interested in the process of rationalizing a literal, SoD interpretation, not coming up with something upon which you could found your beliefs.

[Darth Wong]

Suspension of disbelief only works when the source material is REASONABLY consistent and makes sense. It's not a question of whether you take every word literally or not; I don't necessarily take every word coming out of a person's mouth literally when I'm talking to him, but if I suspend disbelief in a conversation, it means I trust the other guy to be at least TRYING to tell the truth. As with the Bible, however, if his story keeps changing, I can't do that any more. He's obviously full of shit.