Banner
A Little Something Called Context PDF Print E-mail
Atheism and Apologetics - Letter to Mr. Harris
Written by Douglas Wilson   
Friday, 12 November 2010 20:13

Howm'I supposed to defend the faith against these swamis of reason when they keep making me wheeze like they do?

Sam Harris, aspiring scientist and indignation impresario, is promoting this project, in order to advance the sweet voice of reason. You can look at a really cool graphic they have put together here. The base line represents all the verses of the Bible, and the red lines all arch, like so many mortar shots, to the location of another verse, with which it is supposed to collide. You can then tell at a glance that the Bible is just full of contradictions. The night sky is lit up with them. A really cool graphic is necessary to illustrate this because today's street smart youth know that iPhone apps have dispensed with the need for actual arguments and textual study, you know, the kind with books.

I took a random sampling of just a couple of their contradictions, and addressed them below. I will perhaps be forgiven if I don't work through them all. You don't need to drink the whole bottle to tell that it's vinegar. So, here are a couple drops from their bottle, in all their glory, and I don't think I am risking contradiction when I say we need to look elsewhere if we are looking for Pinot Noir that goes with the tenderloin.

#208 If a husband believes, is his wife saved also? 1 Cor. 7:14, Acts 16:31 ≠ 1 Cor. 7:16

Can you feel your faith teetering? Well, you oughter, you superstitious rube, because here are the verses themselves, actually quoted.

"For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy" (1 Cor. 7:14).

"And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" (Acts 16:31).

Which are said to contradict . . .

"For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?" (1 Cor. 7:16)

Let's see. The name of this venture in high intellectual attainment is Project Reason. I am thinking that maybe they should rename it as Project Literacy, for that is where (it seems to me) the issue may lie.

Scripture tells us that a believing spouse ought not to leave an unbeliever simply because of that unbelief. You don't need to worry that having an unbelieving spouse will pollute any resultant children, for the unbelieving spouse is sanctified with the result that the children are holy (1 Cor. 7:14). So, go ahead, stay married to that unbeliever if the unbeliever is content to remain married. And then, to throw us off completely, we have an account of salvation coming to the entire household of the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:31). Apparently, nobody has taught Sam Harris how doctrine ought to be derived from narrative, along with the corollary of how it ought not to be.

Now, all this is set up as a contradiction to the question posed in 1 Cor. 7:16, which encourages a believing spouse whose unbelieving spouse decides to leave them. We know about this because of an intervening verse, verse 15, a little something that we biblical expositors like to call "context."

"But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace" (1 Cor. 7:15).

So when you look at that poster, with all those red arches proving that the Bible is a tissue of contradictions, just remember that #208 was one of those red lines. Tell yourself that Sam Harris thinks the Bible is unreliable because it tells Christian spouses to stay married to the non-Christian if the non-Christian wants to, and not to worry about it if they don't. Most of us would call this different counsel for different circumstances, but for Sam Harris, it is a contradiction. This, under the banner of Project Reason?

"Put your money in the slot, and push B17 if you want the Fritos. Push D9 if you want the Snickers bar."

"O ho! Can you Christians not see the contradictions?"

"Um, no, actually . . ."

"Let us graph it for you. Let us draw a red line from the Fritos to the Snickers. Now do you see?"

"No."

"Did you go to one of those Christian schools? Did they even have science classes?"

Okay, so maybe that one was a fluke. Let's look at one more before my patience runs out.

#211 Is it OK to make images? Ex. 20:4, Deut. 5:8, Deut. 4:16-18, Dt. 4:23, Deut. 27:15 ≠  Ex. 25:18, 20, Num. 21:8

Now here are the verse, in toto, with a little surplus added. The little surplus is more of that context business.

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them" (Ex. 20:3-5a).

"Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: Dt. 5:8-9a)

"Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth: And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath dividedc unto all nations under the whole heaven" (Dt 4:16-19).

"Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant of the LORD your God, which he made with you, and make you a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, which the LORD thy God hath forbidden thee" (Dt. 4:23).

"And the Levites shall speak, and say unto all the men of Israel with a loud voice, Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image, an abomination unto the LORD, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and putteth it in a secret place. And all the people shall answer and say, Amen" (Deut. 27:14-15).

All of which is said to contradict . . .

"And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat" (Ex 25:18).

"And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be" (Ex 25:20).

"And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live" (Num. 21:8).

Follow that? God told the sons of Israel not to make images that they would bow down to or worship, and this is said to contradict the making of images that they did not bow down to or worship. Heh. Let us illustrate this Accomplishment of High Reason with a parallel argument. It is against the rules of soccer to touch the ball with your hands. Does it follow that it is a contradiction to allow the players to kick the ball with their feet? I don't think so, but of course I am not an aspiring scientist like Sam Harris.

 

 



Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Google! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! MySpace! Yahoo! BlogRolling! Twitter! LinkedIn! TwitThis
 
Comments
Search
Only registered users can write comments!
Gianni  Saturday, November 13, 2010 5:45 am

This is so funny. The fun continues in the comment section.

While everybody agrees on the cool graphics, some readers spoil the party:

"Great looking image. I too would love to have access to a high-res version of this so that I can actually read the contradictions."

Yet some readers think that actually reading the contradictions is beside the point:

"If we only get one thing to say to Christians to try to show them that Christianity isn’t true, this could be it. So I want a stack of pocket-sized, fold-up versions."

Several of the people who have actually read this stuff have noted that there are duplicate entries and dubious entries:

"numbers 263 and 264 are identical"

"323 and 324 are also duplicates"

"contradictions 7 and 9 are duplicates"

"some of the contradictions are rather mistaken and lame"

So since everybody agrees that the image is cool but the actual text is rather problematic, they are figuring out how to fix that:

"I will also make available a smaller version (approx. 23 x 34 inches) with just the infographic and no text for those that don´t want to print the large version."

Jane Dunsworth  Saturday, November 13, 2010 6:58 am
Gianni, I don't know if I have the words to describe that (maybe if I could draw a picture.....) but that is really.....something.
Ian Hugh Clary  - Plagiarism?  Saturday, November 13, 2010 9:53 am
I'm not sure the relationship or timeline of who did what first, but their arching looks a lot like this guys: http://www.chrisharrison.net/projects/bibleviz/
Gianni  Saturday, November 13, 2010 10:22 am

Heh, Jane, I think you did have the words to describe it.

But careful, I bet the Sam Harris Contradiction Police would say that in the space of one sentence you contradicted yourself around six times.

Gianni  Saturday, November 13, 2010 10:27 am

Ian, that's weird beyond words.

You know what? I was just about to post the following as part of my reply to Jane:

"I am actually considering getting a copy of the "textless" poster, and replace the title 'Contradictions in the Bible' with 'Cross-references in the Bible'."

I had never heard of the work you have linked.

Jeremy Larson  Saturday, November 13, 2010 10:59 am
On a related page, Heath Robinson wrote this: "Now we need an infographic to chart the inconsistencies of the chart." But I guess the chart would look about the same.
Gianni  Saturday, November 13, 2010 2:37 pm

Ah, and Ian, the author of the contradiction graphic does give credit to the very Christian person you have mentioned: "Inspiration: Chris Harrison" -- although an actual link would have been a better idea.

Well, that means that our team came up with the only thing that made people go "wow" about the whole project, i.e. the graphics. When you leave that out, there's not much left.

Unless I am somehow contradicting myself.

Ian Hugh Clary  - Helpful  Saturday, November 13, 2010 4:02 pm
Gianni, well that's helpful. It's kinda Van Tilian in a way. Harris has to "presuppose" Christianity in more levels that even he realises!
James  - Nice - this is what science is all about  Saturday, November 13, 2010 5:29 pm
Thanks for pointing this out. The beauty of science is that any errors will be welcomed news since the underlying goal is always truth.

However, if the goal is to prove that the Bible is not inerrant, then only one single contradiction is necessary to prove this. Something easy that doesn't require "context" for example like #3 "How many sons did Abraham have?" If there are no contradictions in the Bible it should be pretty simple to go through each one of these and disprove them.
henrybish  - reply to James  Sunday, November 14, 2010 12:33 pm
James,

I just looked at Q3 which alleges a contradiction in the number of sons Abraham had, and it serves to confirm what Doug Wilson was saying. I was surprised that the author of this chart would really stoop so low for something as pathetic as this to call a contradiction. It is quite embarrassing and makes Sam Harris appear like a small uneducated child.

In context, Abraham's 'one and only son' refers to his only offspring by his wife Sarah. The author of Genesis is well aware that after Sarah failed to bear any children Abraham had another son called Ishmael by Sarah's slave-girl - the same author is the source of this very piece of information!

But in the narrative Isaac is clearly regarded as special by Abraham since he was his only son by his dear wife Sarah, hence Isaac is regarded as his 'only son'. Any vaguely competent reader does not need the author to add the clarification "biologically, with respect to Sarah" because that is glaringly obvious.

In addition to all this, with regard to Abraham's second wife Keturah, the implication is that he took her as a wife after Sarah had died (see Gen 24-25), this was long after the account of Isaac being offered up as his 'only son', which he was at the time.

I'd love to see Sam Harris actually be consistent by applying these same ham-fisted reading abilities in everyday life, it would make very clear to everyone how infantile this kind of chart is.
James  - reply to Henrybish  Tuesday, November 23, 2010 7:33 pm
Henrybish, I really am open to "context", but this is pushing the boundaries of rationalization. It reminds me of Clinton "It depends on what the definition of is, is". The scripture doesn't say Isaac "was special" or "the only begotten son from Sarah" it says he was Abraham's "only begotten". This simply means the only son that Abraham procreated and it is simply not true, if you believe the other scriptures.

I get it, you can try to create "context" around whatever you like and rationalize anything. It is the only way to make sense of the Bible.

I would simply recommend that you read Bart Ehrman's books such as "Jesus Interrupted". It has well thought out and researched contradictions "in context" that are too numerous to list here. If it won't change your mind then nothing will and you are certainly free to believe what you like.

I do love that you weren't afraid to bring up the Bible supporting slavery. One of the many morale questions the Bible simply gets wrong.

James
Brad Donovan  Sunday, November 14, 2010 9:11 pm
I think someone ought to go through Mr. Harris' latest book and make a pictoral representation of all his errors, not just his self-contradictions. In our illiterate age it may be more effective than a scholarly refutation! I think the chart should use emoticons as prolifically as possible.......
Matt Weber  Monday, November 15, 2010 1:57 pm
Anyone who doesn't have an ax to grind will eventually realize that the pursuit of Biblical contradictions is a complete waste of time. Believers will always harmonize the two accounts to relieve the contradiction. Consider if the Bible said at one point that the Ark of the Covenant had peanuts in it, and at another point that it had almonds in it. Ah, contradiction...but no, you can simply say that the Ark has both kinds of nuts in it.

There are some blatant contradictions in the Bible, all involving numbers, but these are usually explained by source illegibility. If the Church were as corrupt and evil as Sam Harris thinks, then you'd expect that these contradictions would have been rewritten long ago.

I'm not sure it would matter even if a contradiction were uncovered on some factual matter. Supposedly it would defeat inerrancy, but given that the Bible speaks of circles with circumferences of 3 times the diameter, clearly it is not intended to be an exhaustively true account.
jay niemeyer  Monday, November 15, 2010 10:49 pm
I love it when these guys try this junk...it literally strengthens our faith.
If the mighty minions of the age of "the enlightenment" grasp at these arguments for their crushing contraries...well, with enemies like these, who needs friends?
Gianni  Tuesday, November 16, 2010 3:32 am

"Consider if the Bible said at one point that the Ark of the Covenant had peanuts in it, and at another point that it had almonds in it. Ah, contradiction...but no, you can simply say that the Ark has both kinds of nuts in it."

But Matt, you write this as if it was a sin. Or, like it's all too easy. However, that is a perfectly fine answer.

The peanuts vs. almonds scenario doesn't cease to be a contradiction if we simply said something or another: it's not a contradiction at all.

When we propose that the Ark may have both kinds of nuts, we have not "relieved a contradiction": we have shown that it's a logical fallacy to call it a contradiction.

In short, we are not defending ourselves: we are turning the tables on the critics, and accusing them of a logical failure.

And yes, sometimes it's that easy to defend the faith. But why complain? Why feel guilty for the obtuseness of the unbelievers? Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.

Matt Weber  Tuesday, November 16, 2010 11:31 am
It's not a sin or otherwise bad to attempt to explain an apparent contradiction. Anyone who thinks so just has an axe to grind and can be safely ignored. In the nuts in the Ark scenario, all a believer has to do is come up with an account that incorporates both situations while not being impossible, hence the Ark contains both kinds of nuts. The critic should then accept that it is not a contradiction.

Another kind of contradiction is more robust and can't be dealt with in this way. Take the nuts example and add 'only' in before either almonds or peanuts. Now you have a bigger problem, but still not insurmountable. Perhaps Hebrew lacks the vocabulary to distinguish the two nuts, or something was lost in translation, or the two accounts refer to two different times, or one is metaphorical somehow. The numbers contradictions are like this.

This isn't a problem as long as the harmonization isn't too implausible, and even this differs from person to person. I once saw an attempt to iron out all the inconsistencies in the gospels into one consistent timeline. Interesting effort, but it seems much more likely to me that some of the details were just misremembered by some of the sources. This doesn't hurt inerrancy, especially in light of the commonsense observation that if the gospels were completely identical they would be obvious forgeries.
Gianni  Tuesday, November 16, 2010 3:17 pm

Matt, of course the "only peanuts vs. only almonds" scenario would be a more serious problem. And as you say, there may still be factors that, if known, would remove the problem. But far and away the most common type of "contradiction" reported by Bible critics reveals their own failure to understand what a contradiction is.

I don't follow you, though, when you go ahead and in the third paragraph you write things like "but it seems much more likely to me that some of the details were just misremembered by some of the sources."

Of course, the Bible does contain error. The Bible often reports mistaken speech of confused men, assertions made by individuals who misremember some details, errors of judgment, even the lies of Satan. But you mean the kind of error that the biblical author clearly believes, and expects us also to believe, to be the truth.

I don't follow you, because you just pointed out in the previous paragraph that there is a whole bunch of things we may not know, and that if we only knew, we would see how it all fits together. Since there is this huge cloud of uncertainty and ignorance hanging over us, and since in this scenario there's a "mistaken because misinformed" bumper sticker we need to stick somewhere, why do you choose to stick it on the hat of the author of the text? With all respect, it appears mighty presumptuous to me. First, it's unprovable that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wore a hat. Second, why not assume that they know what they are talking about, and that there are things you may not know, what with living two thousand years later and all?

You talk about what is "implausible" and what is "likely". But what is or isn't likely depends on how many relevant things we have ignored due to our limitations and our ignorance. It depends on whether we have taken into account all the relevant facts, which you have already granted is itself highly unlikely. So what gives?

Gianni  Tuesday, November 16, 2010 3:23 pm

As for the "attempt to iron out all the inconsistencies in the gospels into one consistent timeline", you think it more likely that the biblical writers were wrong in some detail.

I find that ambiguous. Do you mean that that particular harmonization which you "once saw" is less likely to be correct than the possibility that the Bible contains error, or that any harmonization we could ever conceive is less likely? If the former, it's an absurd contention you are in no way forced to make, because it's certainly possible to say that that particular harmonization may be incorrect without being forced to admit any likelihood whatsoever that the Bible contains error. And if the latter, that would be an assertion made by a person who has already decided that the Bible cannot have possibly reported the truth, which begs the question, and which, again with all respect, I find it presumptuous in the extreme, and which therefore I trust is not the position you hold. I trust you are only making an absurd contention you are in no way forced to make, and which you can therefore retract at any time.

Gianni  Tuesday, November 16, 2010 3:36 pm

Finally, you say that "This doesn't hurt inerrancy, especially in light of the commonsense observation that if the gospels were completely identical they would be obvious forgeries." But this must be a non sequitur, a red herring, and a contradiction all at the same time, which makes this statement of yours a rare attraction for lovers of nonsense.

It's a non sequitur because even granting that if the gospels were completely identical they would be obvious forgeries, it doesn't follow that your theory about misremembering details doesn't hurt inerrancy. The point about the forgeries is a red herring. Or seen from another angle, this statement is a non sequitur because to make it work you assume that the gospels would be devoid of error, in the form of contradictions, only at the condition that they be identical. This is clearly false, as it is a well known fact that non-identical testimonies of the same event are not necessarily mutually contradictory at all. Indeed, you are actually in the process of mentioning here the photo negative, or corollary, of this very phenomenon: "if the gospels were completely identical they would be obvious forgeries", which contradicts and sinks the very argument you intend to make. If it's true what you say, that if the gospels were completely identical they would be obvious forgeries, and that therefore, ultimately, non-identical testimonies of the same event are not necessarily mutually contradictory at all, then it's not true what you assume here, that the gospels would be devoid of error, in the form of contradictions, only at the condition that they be identical.

Whew.

Therefore your assertion that your theory about misremembering details "doesn't hurt inerrancy" remains a mere assertion without a supporting argument, also because inexplicably you killed your supporting argument with several bullets.

Jane Dunsworth  Tuesday, November 16, 2010 8:37 pm
I know this is a bit beside the point, but the most obvious reason the timelines don't match up across the gospels is that no one was trying to make them do so. Since the gospel writers never assert that they are constructing chronological histories, this isn't a problem for inerrancy, either. You can't be errant about what you're not even claiming to be the case.

Just this past weekend I read a non-fiction book that cut forward and backward in time several times, to narrate what the author had learned about his subject matter in relation to other things that were going on, as well as to show his own emerging understanding of the matter. It wasn't done with perfect skill, and might not have been the best choice of method in this case since it did get a bit confusing at times, but there was nothing "wrong" about his timeline because he never claimed to be laying out a continuously forward-moving sequence. And the evangelists didn't make that claim, either.
Gianni  Wednesday, November 17, 2010 10:56 am

"You can't be errant about what you're not even claiming to be the case."

I love that, Jane.

True, some Bible critics are so eager to find Bible contradictions, any Bible contradiction, anything sounding even remotely like a Bible contradiction, that it's only by shooting them with tranquilizer darts in the neck that you can stop them before they start accusing John and Paul of denying in Lady Madonna what they affirm in All You Need Is Love.