Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Biblical Contradiction VI

While displaying ignorance in multiple areas, atheists demonstrate this deficiency frequently in their description of Biblical “contradictions.” What is a contradiction? A simple definition comes to us from Stanley Jevons’ Elementary Lessons in Logic: “Nothing can both be and not be” (1928, p. 117).

One Guy or Two?
I saw these two guys verbally giving it to this smaller guy at the mall the other day. It was just to the left of the food court where I was having a burger. The little guy had his back to the wall and didn’t seem to be defending himself at all. And then, while I couldn’t hear his words, I could tell he was explaining something. All of a sudden, the one guy seemed to have changed his mind. I could even tell by his hand gestures that he was saying he was sorry for what he’d said. In fact, the little guy and this other guy, the one who apologised walked off together leaving the third guy, the one that was still angry, just standing there.

Atheists may or may not be able to accept what happened in this story. But when something similar happened in the Bible, the atheist yells, "Contradiction! Contradiction! You can't trust the Bible because it's full of contradictions."

Matthew 27:44; Mark 15:32 / Luke 23:39

See also “synecdoche” eg Genesis 8:4; Genesis 21:7


Dzsonó said...

What do you guys think about releasing Origin of Species with a 50 page intro by Ray Comfort?

JD Curtis said...

As one blogger put it yesterday......"I am a skeptic who is highly dubious about the theory of evolution by natural selection for three reasons. First, I see it as a dynamic and oftentimes tautological theory of little material value to science. This may change in the future, of course, but since it has been around for 150 years without producing much in the way of practical utility or reliable information, and has even hampered the development of more useful biological science, I see little sign of that changing anytime soon. Second, the predictive models evolutionary theory produces are reliably incorrect and fall well short of the standard set by the hard sciences. In fact, they seldom even rise to the much lower standard of the social sciences. Third, the theory of evolution by natural selection does not rest on a scientific foundation, but a logical one; it is no more inherently scientific than the Summa Theologica." Link to the entire entry.

Gorth Satana said...

Evolution is the backbone of biology.