![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2020\/04\/ContradictionFractal2.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Atheist and anti-theist\u00a0Bob Seidensticker<\/a>,\u00a0who was\u00a0\u201craised Presbyterian\u201d<\/a>,\u00a0runs the influential\u00a0Cross Examined<\/em><\/a>\u00a0blog. He asked me there,\u00a0on 8-11-18<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cI\u2019ve got 1000+ posts here attacking your worldview. You just going to let that stand? Or could you present a helpful new perspective that I\u2019ve ignored on one or two of those posts?\u201d<\/span>\u00a0He also made a general statement\u00a0on 6-22-17<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cChristians\u2019 arguments are easy to refute . . . I\u2019ve heard the good stuff, and it\u2019s not very good.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0He added\u00a0in the combox<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cIf I\u2019ve misunderstood the Christian position or Christian arguments, point that out. Show me where I\u2019ve mischaracterized them.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Such confusion would indeed be\u00a0predictable<\/em>, seeing that Bob himself admitted\u00a0(2-13-16<\/a>):\u00a0\u201cMy study of the Bible has been haphazard, and I jump around based on whatever I\u2019m researching at the moment.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0I\u2019m always one to oblige people\u2019s wishes if I am able, so I decided to do a series of posts in reply.\u00a0It\u2019s also been said,\u00a0\u201cbe careful what you wish for.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0If Bob responds to this post, and makes me aware of it, his reply will be added to the end along with my counter-reply. If you don\u2019t see that, rest assured that he either\u00a0hasn\u2019t<\/em>\u00a0replied, or didn\u2019t\u00a0inform<\/em>\u00a0me that he did.\u00a0But don\u2019t hold your breath.<\/p>\n Bob (for the record) virtually\u00a0begged<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0pleaded<\/em>\u00a0with me to dialogue with him in May 2018, via email. But by\u00a010-3-18<\/a>,\u00a0following\u00a0massive, childish name-calling attacks<\/a>\u00a0against me,\u00a0 encouraged by Bob on his blog (just prior to his\u00a0banning<\/em>\u00a0me from it), his opinion was as follows:\u00a0\u201cDave Armstrong . . . made it clear that a thoughtful intellectual conversation wasn\u2019t his goal. . . . [I] have no interest in what he\u2019s writing about.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n And on 10-25-18, utterly oblivious to the ludicrous irony of\u00a0his<\/em>\u00a0making the statement, Bob\u00a0wrote in a combox<\/a>\u00a0on his blog:\u00a0\u201cThe problem, it seems to me, is when someone gets these clues, like you, but ignores them. I suppose the act of ignoring could be deliberate or just out of apathy, but someone who\u2019s not a little bit driven to investigate cognitive dissonance will just stay a Christian, fat \u2018n sassy and ignorant.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0Again,\u00a0Bob mocks some Christian in his combox on\u00a010-27-18<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cYou can\u2019t explain it to us, you can\u2019t defend it, you can\u2019t even defend it to yourself. Defend your position or shut up about it. It\u2019s clear you have nothing.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0And again\u00a0on the same day<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cIf you can\u2019t answer the question, man up and say so.\u201d\u00a0<\/span>And on\u00a010-26-18<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cyou refuse to defend it, after being asked over and over again.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0And\u00a0again<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cYou\u2019re<\/i>\u00a0the one playing games, equivocating, and being unable to answer the challenges.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Bob\u2019s cowardly hypocrisy knows no bounds. Again,\u00a0on 6-30-19<\/a>, he was chiding someone who (very much like he himself) was (to hear\u00a0him<\/em>\u00a0tell it) not backing up his position:\u00a0\u201cSpoken like a true weasel trying to run away from a previous argument. You know, you could just say, \u2018Let me retract my previous statement of X\u2019 or something like that.\u201d\u00a0<\/span>Yeah,\u00a0Bob<\/em>\u00a0could!\u00a0\u00a0He still hasn\u2019t yet uttered one peep in reply<\/a>\u00a0to \u2014 now \u2014 36 of my critiques of his atrocious reasoning.\u00a0As of 7-9-19<\/a>, this is how Bob absurdly rationalizes his non-response:\u00a0\u201cHe\u2019s written several blog posts titled, in effect, \u2018In Which Bob Seidensticker Was Mean to Me.\u2019 Normally, I\u2019d enjoy a semi-thoughtful debate, but I\u2019m sure they weren\u2019t.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Bible-Basher Bob\u2019s words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>.\u00a0To find these posts, word-search \u201cSeidensticker\u201d on my\u00a0atheist page<\/a>\u00a0or search \u201cSeidensticker Folly #\u201d in my sidebar search (near the top).<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Bob\u2019s article, \u201cBSR [Bite-Sized Reply] 5: The Bible Is Full of Contradictions\u201d<\/a> (3-30-20) is a classic case study of a fool hypocritically lecturing us supposedly ignorant, imbecilic Christians as to what a supposed logical contradiction is, when in fact he doesn\u2019t have a clue himself<\/em>. I suggest that he get up to speed on his elementary logic before attempting further articles of this nature:<\/p>\n Logic Pretest<\/a><\/p>\n Law of noncontradiction<\/a> (Wikipedia)<\/p>\n Syllogism<\/a> (Wikipedia)<\/p>\n Deductive reasoning<\/a> (Wikipedia)<\/p>\n Fallacy<\/a> (Wikipedia)<\/p>\n Let\u2019s run through a few Bible contradictions and consider what real eyewitness testimony would look like.<\/span><\/p>\n Yeah, let\u2019s . . .<\/p>\n (These Bite-Size Replies are responses to \u201cQuick Shots,\u201d brief Christian responses to atheist challenges. The introduction to this series is<\/span>\u00a0here<\/a><\/u>.)<\/span><\/p>\n Challenge to the Christian:<\/strong>\u00a0The Bible is full of contradictions.<\/span><\/p>\n Bite-Size Reply: No it ain\u2019t<\/em>!<\/p>\n Christian response #1:<\/strong>\u00a0There\u2019s a difference between a\u00a0contradiction<\/u>\u00a0and a\u00a0variation<\/u>. Two reports about the same thing may not be identical, but that doesn\u2019t mean they contradict.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n Amen!<\/p>\n The gospels all have women telling the disciples about the empty tomb, except for Mark. In that gospel, the women are told by a man in the tomb to report the resurrection to the disciples. But \u201ctrembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.\u201d And there Mark ends. That\u2019s a contradiction.<\/span><\/p>\n Not at all. What Bob has done is assume that 16:8 is the end of the book. It\u2019s true that there is a dispute over the authenticity of verses 9-20 as part of the biblical canon, and many modern biblical scholars agree with Bob that it is not. But then again, one can find in modern biblical scholars belief (or non-belief) in just about anything<\/em>. It\u2019s a radically mixed bag, and everyone has their starting premises, which may be and are questioned.<\/p>\n In the long version, Mary Magdalene (referred to in verse 1, as visiting the tomb) tells the disciples that she had seen the risen Jesus (16:9-11). Dr. Dave Miller wrote a superb, gloriously in-depth article, \u201cIs Mark 16:9-20 Inspired?\u201d<\/a> Apologetics Press, 2005). Here are a few key excerpts (line breaks mean a break in the text):<\/p>\n Most, if not all, scholars who have examined the subject concede that the truths presented in the verses are historically authentic\u2014even if they reject the genuineness of the verses as being originally part of Mark\u2019s account. The verses contain no teaching of significance that is not taught elsewhere. [followed by numerous examples]<\/p>\n Those who reject the originality of the passage in Mark, while acknowledging the authenticity of the events reported, generally assign a very early date for the origin of the verses.<\/p>\n [T]he sheer magnitude of the witnesses that support verses 9-20 cannot be summarily dismissed out of hand. Though rejecting the genuineness of the verses, the Alands offer the following concession that ought to give one pause: \u201cIt is true that the longer ending of Mark 16:9-20 is\u00a0found in 99 percent of the Greek manuscripts<\/strong>\u00a0as well as the rest of the tradition, enjoying over a period of centuries practically an official ecclesiastical sanction as\u00a0a genuine part of the gospel of Mark<\/strong>\u201d (1987, p. 287, emp. added). Such longstanding and widespread acceptance cannot be treated lightly nor dismissed easily.<\/p>\n The patristic writings that indicate acceptance of the verses as genuine are remarkably extensive. From the second century, Irenaeus, who died c.\u00a0A.D.\u00a0202, alludes to the verses in both Greek and Latin. [a host of other examples follows]<\/p>\n All told, the cumulative\u00a0external<\/strong>\u00a0evidence that documents the genuineness of verses 9-20, from Greek manuscripts, patristic citations, and ancient versions, is expansive, ancient, diversified, and unsurpassed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Here\u2019s another. The second Commandment against worshiping idols has this: \u201cI, the Lord your God, am a jealous God,\u00a0punishing the children for the sin of the parents\u00a0to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me\u201d (Exodus 20:5). In a more sober frame of mind in a later book, God changed his mind: \u201cFathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin\u201d (Deuteronomy 24:16). That\u2019s a contradiction.<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s not. I already refuted this contention of Bob\u2019s over a year-and-a-half ago:\u00a0Seidensticker Folly #17: \u201cto the third and fourth generations\u201d?<\/a>\u00a0[9-11-18] Readers will, no doubt, be utterly shocked to learn that he never offered any counter-reply to it. So here he is, asserting the same tired argument that has long since been refuted. As Proverbs 9:8 (RSV) states: \u201cDo not\u00a0<\/b>reprove\u00a0a scoffer, or he will hate you; reprove a wise man, and he will love you.\u201d 29:1 adds: \u201cHe who is often\u00a0<\/b>reproved, yet stiffens his neck\u00a0will suddenly be broken beyond healing.\u201d<\/p>\n There are thick books like\u00a0The Big Book of Bible Difficulties<\/em>\u00a0that have rationalizations for hundreds of cases like these, . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Precisely because there are thick anti-theist atheists like Bob<\/em>, there is a need to compile thick books that thoroughly refute their endless fallacious and false contentions. That doesn\u2019t prove in the slightest that the Bible is full of contradictions: only that (once all the evidence is in) its critics<\/em> are.\u00a0 Hence, this is my 37th refutation of Bob\u2019s claims, which would probably add up to at least a small book. Also, I observed in my paper,\u00a0Why We Should Fully Expect Many \u201cBible Difficulties\u201d<\/a> (4-5-19):<\/p>\n 1. The Bible is a very lengthy, multi-faceted book by many authors, from long ago, with many literary genres (and in three languages), and cultural assumptions that are foreign to us.<\/p>\n 2. The Bible purports to be revelation from an infinitely intelligent God. Thus (even though God simplifies it as much as possible), for us to think that it is an easy thing to immediately grasp and figure out, and would not have any number of \u201cdifficulties\u201d for mere human beings to work through, is naive. The Bible itself teaches that authoritative teachers are necessary to properly understand it.<\/p>\n 3. All grand \u201ctheories\u201d have components (\u201canomalies\u201d \/ \u201cdifficulties\u201d) that need to be worked out and explained. For example, scientific theories do not purport to perfectly explain everything. They often have large \u201cmysterious\u201d areas that have to be resolved.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Here\u2019s what eyewitness testimony looks like: \u201cI Simon Peter<\/em>\u00a0and Andrew my brother took our nets and went to the sea\u201d (from the Gospel of Peter). \u201cI Thomas,<\/em>\u00a0an Israelite, write you this account\u201d (the Infancy Gospel of Thomas). \u201cThese are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which\u00a0Didymos Judas Thomas<\/em>\u00a0wrote down\u201d (the Gospel of Thomas). But this is apparently unconvincing because these books aren\u2019t in the New Testament! And Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John have no clear, identified eyewitness claims like these.<\/span><\/p>\n Oh, that\u2019s<\/em> cute. In writing a piece criticizing the Bible, Bob then introduces three passages from spurious late and Gnostic-influenced Gospels that were never accepted into the canon of Scripture. He (big surprise!) finds them superior in quality. David Heady, in his article, \u201cThe Gospels of Judas, Peter, and Thomas: Is Their\u00a0Exclusion from the Canon Merited?\u201d<\/a> (2016) writes, concerning the Gospel of Peter:<\/p>\n No small amount of literature has been written pertaining to the apocryphal gospel of\u00a0Peter. While a few attempts have been made to place its date of origin into the first century, they\u00a0have generally been met with great resistance from scholars of a wide variety. Bart Ehrman\u00a0states, \u201cThere are reasons for dating the text to a period after the canonical Gospels, probably\u00a0sometime in the beginning or middle of the second century.\u201d24 . . . Paul Foster goes even further by affirmatively\u00a0stating, \u201cTheories that attempt to press the text of the Gospel of Peter, or a source embedded\u00a0within it, back into the first century are not sustainable. The text is best understood as a reflection\u00a0on canonical traditions, and it also demonstrates theological trajectories that are part of later\u00a0Christianity.\u201d26 Hence, it would appear that the gospel of Peter could not have been written by\u00a0someone who had walked with Christ or who had interviewed someone who had.<\/p>\n 24 Bart D. Ehrman and Zlatko Plese. Apocryphal Gospels: Texts and Translations<\/em>\u00a0(Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 376.<\/p>\n 26 Paul Foster, \u201cThe Gospel of Peter,\u201d The Expository Times<\/em> 118, no. 7 (July, 2016): 324.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Its not enough for a reputed \u201cGospel\u201d to simply state, \u201cI Simon Peter . . . \u201d Anyone can claim to be anyone. Such books have to be proven to be early enough to have been eyewitness testimony as well. This one simply doesn\u2019t pass the smell test. As for the Gospel of Thomas, David Heady noted:<\/p>\n As is the case with Peter and Judas, the general consensus is that\u00a0Thomas originated in the mid-to-late second century. . . .\u00a0It would be the only book in the canon to have a date of origin that is not just in the\u00a0second century but is well into it. . . .<\/p>\n Kruger points out, \u201cThe broad consensus is that\u00a0Thomas was written. . . by an unknown author (certainly not the apostle Thomas).\u201d [Michael J. Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New\u00a0Testament Books<\/em> (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 328]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Likewise, James Bishop in his article, \u201cJesus and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas: What Do We Know?\u201d<\/a> (3-23-20), writes:<\/p>\n The\u00a0IGT<\/em>\u00a0was probably written in Greek at some point in the late second century CE. It is not therefore considered an early\u00a0source<\/a>\u00a0for the historical Jesus as it is removed by well over a century. Like the apocryphal\u00a0Gospel of Thomas<\/em><\/a>, the\u00a0IGT<\/em>\u00a0claims its contents consist of the \u201cstories of Thomas the Israelite\u201d, hence from the original disciple himself. However, scholars are in agreement that this is not the case.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So much for Bible-Basher Bob\u2019s rather novel brand of so-called \u201ceyewitness testimony.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Related Reading<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\nReply to Atheists: Defining a [Biblical] \u201cContradiction\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[1-7-11]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nReview of\u00a0The Book of Non-Contradiction<\/em>\u00a0(Phillip Campbell)<\/a>\u00a0[5-9-17]
\n*
\nAlleged \u201cBible Contradictions\u201d: Most Are Actually\u00a0Not<\/em>\u00a0So<\/a>\u00a0[2002 and 6-7-17]
\n*<\/div>\nAtheist Inventions of Many Bogus \u201cBible Contradictions\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[National Catholic Register<\/em>, 9-4-18]
\n*<\/div>\n