Don’t Be Such a Cretan About It! “Cretans Are ALWAYS Liars”
(Titus 1:12) (Mark
Smith, March 1996)
Responses to this Cretan essay
If the New Testament were actually
written “without errors” as the Biblical Inerrantists claim, then to win any
debate against an Atheist a Fundy would need to merely point out to us Atheists
that it is written thus and such in the New Testament and that would be the end
of the debate. And to many Fundies, that IS the extent of any debate, for they
are of the belief that: God Said It / I Believe It / That Settles It For that reason, this claim of
Inerrancy must be dealt a swift death as soon as possible. Fundies do not merely
claim that the New Testament is a “good” book, or even a reasonably accurate
book. They claim it is a PERFECT book, 100% devoid of any errors whatsoever,
like a chain where each link is pristine and pure. Therefore, to prove it is not
100% error-free, all we have to do is find one error and thus, with our
“intellectual bolt-cutters”, we have busted open one link of the perfectionist
chain that holds up the claim and the entire pomposity of perfection comes
crashing to the ground. How many errors does it take to DISprove “a total lack of errors”??? Just one. Does it have to be a
major, earth-shaking error? No; any small error will do, as Jesus himself said: “The man ((or Bible)) who can be trusted in LITTLE things, can be trusted also in great; and the man ((or Bible)) who is dishonest in little things IS DISHONEST ALSO IN GREAT THINGS.” (Luke 16:10, NEB) Or as the famous Christian minister and founder of
Methodism John Wesley once wrote, If there be any mistake in the Bible, there
may well be a thousand. If there be one falsehood in that book, it
did not come from the God of truth. (John Wesley, Journal, Wed., July 24,
1776)
Remember, the Fundies are the ones
making this self-righteous claim about their book, and their arrogant claim,
upon examination, will fall as fast as a Rev. Swaggart for a $5.00 whore.
*****
The “chain” of evidence that supports the claim of inerrancy needs only one small link to be clipped, and the whole Christian assumption comes crashing down. Our “bolt-cutters” in this case are going to concentrate on one link within the New Testament, a small section in the epistle entitled Titus. Embedded within this letter from the Apostle Paul is an absurd little “brain teaser” that we all became familiar with as children, even you children that had “mush for brains” as Rush Limbaugh would say. In fact, it is the very absurdity of it that made it fun to contemplate. Of course, no one but an idiot with more than “half their brain tied behind their back” would have ever thought of taking it seriously. And yet here it is, as serious as a funeral, embedded smack-dab within “The Holy Scriptures,” claiming inspiration from “Almighty God” himself, according to the Fundies. The brain teaser of which I speak, the version we all grew up with, went something like this: (1) I am a liar. (2) Everything I say is a lie. (3) What I just said is true. Well, it turns out that this same simple brain teaser is also found within The New Testament. Check out what the “inspired” Apostle Paul wrote in the “inerrant & perfect” New Testament, NASB version:
To be specific, the absurdity is this: a Cretan (who “cannot tell the truth”) stating the “truth” that Cretans “can not tell the truth.” Then Joe Hovah (who “cannot tell a lie”) compounds the lie by inspiring Paul to label the Cretan’s absurdity as “truth.” I would also like to point out the moral shortcoming of the "inspired" Apostle Paul here using known LIARS upon which to build his argument to Titus- anything to win an argument, eh Christian Paul??? Lies or brain teasers- take your choice.
I know this is confusing, and may take a minute to sink in. That’s OK-- remember, this is what brain teasers are supposed to do-- they’re supposed to act as speed bumps to your thinking to force you to slow down and contemplate. To help you digest it a little better, let’s look at the same data side-by-side in tabular form:
So what we have here is a perfect match-up between “wholly” nonsense on the left, and “Holy” writ on the right. Everyone freely admits the brain teaser on the left to be illogical, impossible nonsense. Yet because the exact same nonsense, just slightly re-written on the right hand side, is also found between the covers of some “holy book,” does this documented nonsense now somehow magically transform itself into “holy truth” ????? Hell no! And if the Christians didn’t have a vested interest to protect, if somehow you showed them the chart above and managed to persuade them that the right hand side was actually from a NON-Christian “holy book,” they would freely admit the stupidity of that holy book ASAP. They would see immediately that “the glove fits,” and they would convict! But show them this crap comes right out of their own damn Bible, and whoa! Years of hypnotism by the Christian myth kicks in and down go the blinders over the eyes, in go the earplugs, and up goes the force-field around the brain, and off they go a chanting like a bunch of brain-dead O.J. supporters, “The gloves didn’t fit, you must not convict!” Now, no matter what evidence you show them, they can’t see it. Period. They have been hypnotized by years of constant Christian chanting and brain washing into being able to NOT see the obvious, when the obvious is too unpleasant. But nonsense is nonsense, regardless of how many people call it “sacred truth.” To clarify even further, let’s expand what Paul wrote to Titus, and define a few of his key words-- after all, before we can know what the verses mean we have to understand what the words mean.
Let’s now analyze the context around these verses. After all, we wouldn’t want to encourage any Fundies to do their usual knee-jerk reaction of accusing us of taking verses out of context. Paul wrote these verses originally within a letter addressed to his friend and co-worker Titus, whom he had left on the island of Crete. Titus was to finish the task of getting things organized, and to appoint elders to rule the various Cretan congregations located there (Titus 1:5). These Cretan elders appointed by Titus had to be knowledgeable in orthodox doctrine, in order to fight against Cretan heretics that had infiltrated the churches there (Titus 1:9). These Cretan heretics were “empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision” (Titus 1:10). Apparently, some of the Cretan heretics had splintered off from the main body of heretics there and had joined a competing brand of Christianity known as the Circumcision Party, of which Paul was in constant competition against (Galatians 2:12 et al). Of these two heretical Cretan factions, the worst was the Circumcision Party (Titus 1:10). Paul then quotes a racial slur from the famous Cretan philosopher Epimenides, to show just how bad these Cretans really were (Titus 1:12). Then, as if that weren’t enough, he goes on to add his own support for this racial slur by declaring what the Cretan philosopher had said was true (Titus 1:13). Paul, being the spokesman for the Christian god (according to the Fundies), has thus stamped with the divine seal of approval this absurd racial slur against the entire population of the island of Crete. (As a humorous aside, I have a friend who knows of a Greek-Orthodox
bishop from the island of Crete who
proudly displays a framed enlargement of this verse upon his office wall!) The Word “ALWAYS” Of course, knowing the propensity of Fundies to quibble over minutia, I can hear them whining already about the word “always.�� Their whining would go something like this: “Well, Paul didn’t say that the Cretans lied every single time they opened their mouths. Even a liar occasionally tells the truth.” Listen: liars lie; that’s why they are called LIARS! If Rev. Bob says “2+2=4,” is he then a liar? No. If later Rev. Bob says “2+2=2,” is he then a liar? Yes, he is then a liar. And if even later he says “4+4=8,” is Rev. Bob still a liar? No, he is not now a liar, for he told the truth. However, if Rev. Bob ALWAYS said “2+2=2,” then Rev. Bob would ALWAYS be a liar. The key word in the verse is ALWAYS, which as already shown, means: “continued duration (1) perpetually, incessantly (2) invariably, at any and every time” (Strongs Concordance). Paul’s statement is NOT that the Cretans are merely liars or sometimes liars or that they lie occasionally, but rather they are “ALWAYS liars,” that is, their lying is never ending. The accusation Paul is making is that IF words are coming out of a Cretan’s mouth, you know for sure it’s a lie. If I were to say that Christians are ALWAYS nice, I would mean by that there never comes a time when they are NOT nice. Likewise Paul is affirming within these verses that at any and all times, Cretans are liars. Paul is talking of the duration of their lying. Paul is saying that these people are ALWAYS liars, therefore they are always LYING. If and when they tell the truth, they are no longer liars; they then become truth-tellers. A person may be a liar one minute, and a truth-teller the next. But if a person is ALWAYS a liar, he is a liar 24 hours a day, and is incapable of telling any truths whatsoever. This, of course, is an impossibility. When someone says anyone is “always” this or that, they have set themselves up as targets of stupidity in the shooting gallery of the logical. To clarify, look at the opposite situation, of someone who is ALWAYS honest. To be always honest would mean they are never NOT honest. A person who is ALWAYS honest could never do anything DIShonest without losing his title of being “always honest.” Likewise, to say that someone is ALWAYS a liar is equivalent to saying they are never NOT a liar. Moreover, if they were ever to utter just one true statement, they would-- FOR THAT MOMENT if for no other moment in history, cease to be “always a liar.” Therefore, all it takes to disprove Joe Hovah and Biblical Inerrancy is one little Cretan who has told at least one truth, one Cretan who was not “always a liar.” I wonder if we could find such a Cretan as this????? We find that honest Cretan right smack-dab in the middle of Paul’s absurdity, hiding there in plain sight. The Christian “god,” in his infinite wisdom, in order to support his absurdity that Cretans can never say anything true, quotes from a Cretan prophet and then turns around and “inspires” Paul to affirm that which he just quoted was TRUE. And thus embedded here within the New Testament is its own destruction: an honest Cretan who has told a truth, a Cretan who by divine decree was not “always a liar.” Since that Cretan prophet actually told a truth, that very truth now proves the falsehood of the original statement of Cretans not being able to tell the truth! Thus the Bible itself has disproved Biblical Inerrancy!!! “One Chance in a Million” ExplanationsThis situation is what���s known as a Logical Impossibility, and as such it is a Fundie’s worst nightmare. In all other types of contradictions, there is usually at least a “one chance in a million” explanation, and of course the Christians usually go for it, rather than admit their Bible contains an error or contradiction. This habit of Christian Fundies to always grab at straws in defense of their religion reminds me of a scene in the Jim Carrey movie “Dumb and Dumber” where Jim Carrey (Lloyd) asks Lauren Holly (Mary) a question}
LLOYD I'm gonna
ask you something flat out and I want you to answer me honestly: What do you
think the chances are of a girl like you and a guy like me ending up together?
MARY
(Obviously thrown by this question…) Lloyd,
that's difficult to say. I mean we hardly --
LLOYD --I asked
you to be honest, Mary.
MARY But Lloyd,
I really can't --
LLOYD --Come on,
give it to me straight. I drove a long way to see you, the least you can do is
level with me. What are my chances?
MARY Not good.
LLOYD You mean
not good, like one out of a hundred?
MARY I'd say
more like one out of a million.
LLOYD So… you're
telling me there IS
a chance!!! And just like Lloyd in the scene above, when Atheists confront Fundies with obvious contradictions within their Bible, Christians would rather get their hopes up with these “one in a million” explanations, rather than go with the more rational route of admitting a contradiction actually exists within their Bible. Of course, after hearing hundreds of these “one in a million” explanations regarding the seemingly endless supply of contradictions found within The Holy Babble, a Christian Creationist should start to wonder if maybe the tremendous odds of evolution really aren’t all that bad! For myself, over the years, the convoluted - distorted -
contorted “explanations” that the Christians come up with have ceased to amaze me. Of course, sometimes they just downright lie about what the Bible actually says (see the quote from Geisler later on, in the Cyberspace section) in order to cover-up the contradiction. This “verbal volleyball” and Clintonian “is-is” logic used to amaze me; now it merely disgusts me. It is also yet one more piece of evidence to convince me that I made the right decision in leaving Christianity; for if it takes countless lies and deceptions to defend that religion, chances are that religion isn’t worth defending in the first place. And anyone who has to lie to defend a God of truth has his moral compass pointing in the wrong direction anyway. But given the fact that this contradiction in Titus is a Logical Impossibility and not your run-of-the-mill standard contradiction, lies provide the only means of escape for the Fundie stuck in our round room looking for his corner to piss in. In other words, with this contradiction in Titus, we Atheists have the Christians by their proverbial balls. A Logical ImpossibilityIn a Logical Impossibility all exits (and corners to piss in!) are sealed off by the nature of the beast itself. There are no explanations. Period. This is what I have been told for years about Logical Impossibilities by Fundies themselves as they repeatedly challenged me to provide them with such from their Bible. Well Fundies, your challenge has been met. Mere contradictions, to one with an active imagination, always have an escape chute-- no matter how far-fetched. A Logical Impossibility, however, is absolute, undeniable proof of falsehood. Any Christian Fundie that claims Biblical Inerrancy, facing a Logical Impossibility in his Bible, must abandon his claim, or abandon all claims to rationality. In a Logical Impossibility, the choice is that simple. As for the Fundie reading this right now, you are at a fork in the road: on your left is truth and rationality; on your right is falsehood, irrationality, mental gymnastics, and Clintonian “is-is” logic. Choose you this day whom you will worship. Some Biblical Inerrantists out there may yet be showing signs of life
upon our intellectual battlefield, so what follows is a merciful “bullet to the
head,” which will let them boldly go where no Inerrantist has gone before, to
the conclusion that... “The Apostle
Paul Is Highly Illogical, Captain.” For those Spocks out there who prefer the analytical rather than the
intuitive approach to logic, Ph.D. candidate *Doug Krueger has been kind enough to do
this logical breakdown of the Apostle Paul’s apparent breakdown in logic in Titus 1:12, 13}
1.
X {The Cretan Philosopher} is a member of group Y {Cretans}.
2.
X said, "All members of group Y always lie."
3.
X told the truth in (2).
4.
X either told the truth in (2) or X lied in (2).
[By the law of the excluded middle.]
5.
X did not lie in (2).
[Restatement of (3).]
6.
If X told the truth in (2), then all members of group Y always lie.
[By elementary logic.]
7.
All members of group Y always lie.
[By (3) and (6).]
8.
X always lies.
[By (7) and (1).]
9.
If X always lies, then (2) is a lie.
[By elementary logic.]
10. (2) is a
lie.
[By (8) and (9).]
11. If (3) is
true, then (3) is false.
[By (6) - (10).]
12. (3) is
either true or false.
[By the law of excluded middle.]
13. (3) is
false.
[By (11) and (12).]
14. If (3) is
false, then the bible is not inerrant.
[By elementary logic.]
15. The bible is
not inerrant.
[By (13) and (14).]
*Doug Krueger, graduate student: Philosophy, University of
Arkansas, Fayetteville. Areas of specialization include: epistemology, 20th Century analytic philosophy and the
philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein. Mr. Krueger is originally from Edinburg,
Texas. For any comments or criticisms of the above, please direct your remarks
directly to him at dkruege@comp.uark.edu as Formal Logic confuses the hell out of
me. I hope by now that most of you have
come to the conclusion that the New Testament contains at least one
error. Of course, some Christians may be jumping in their seats eager to blurt
out what they think will answer this problem. Knowing this ahead of time, the
whole problem was sent into cyberspace to be kicked around the internet for a
while. What follows is a lively exchange of ideas between Christians and
Freethinkers regarding Paul’s contradiction in The New Testament, book of
Titus.
*****
Detour Into Cretan CyberspaceThis is a detour into the wonderful world of Cyberspace. (“CyberSPACE,” not “cyberSEX”; Reverends Swaggart and Bakker please calm down!) I had posted my discovery about Titus upon what is called a “list server” in February of 1996. In a “list server,” whatever is posted goes to all the people subscribed to that list via the internet, and any responses also get delivered electronically to everyone on the list. This particular list is run by Farrell Till, editor of The Skeptical Review, and numbers both Christians and non-Christians among its subscribers. Needless to say, free-for-alls are common-- and entertaining. Of course the Christians usually lose, but no one’s a loser when it comes to gaining knowledge and experience. (For your information, Farrell Till has predicted that the “on-line” explosion going on now will number traditional Fundie Xtianity among its victims.) The response to my posting was awesome-- this topic really hit home. I was receiving about fifty to a hundred responses a day for many days. In fact, the preceding logical analysis by Doug Krueger was one such response. I have culled through the postings, and now for your entertainment I would like to present to you the highlights... NOTE: As these exchanges are now several years old, the email hyperlinks may or may not be valid. The Problem is Stated: Posting by Farrell Till: A problem has been identified that cannot be logically
compared to what you or I or any other uninspired person might say, and numerous
postings have show how that it would have been logically impossible for the
Cretan poet to tell the truth, if "Paul" was right in saying that it was true
that Cretans were always liars. Since it wouldn't have been possible for the Cretan poet to
make a true statement, it wouldn't have been possible for Paul to be right in
saying that the Cretan poet's testimony was true. (Farrell Till:
jftill@theramp.net
) The Responses: “ALWAYS Doesn’t ALWAYS
Mean ALWAYS” Christian Paul Nanson posted: I can't believe what I'm reading. If someone is a liar, does that mean that he
ALWAYS lies? Maybe we really don't
live in the same world after all... (Paul Nanson:
think@eskimo.com
) Responses: Posting by
Douglas E. Krueger: No, I'm
not saying that one who lies must always lie.
I was simply pointing out
that Titus 1:12 itself states that Cretans are always liars. Now, if this is true, then it follows
that a Cretan cannot utter a true
statement. However, verse
13, immediately after 12, of all
things, states that what the Cretan said is true:
"This testimony is
true." In other words, we
don't need to appeal to the real world (where
there ARE Cretans who do not always lie, and in fact there are Cretans
who hardly ever lie, I'd say) to find a contradiction.
The contradiction is a logical one.
It is found in the "good book" itself. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it
seems that a contradiction cannot be avoided after the Titus verse in question.
The writer states that a Cretan said that Cretans are always liars, and then
says that this statement is true. No more obvious a contradiction
could be hoped for. (Douglas
E. Krueger: dkruege@comp.uark.edu ) Posting by
Farrell Till: I can't
believe that Nanson can't see the point. The Cretan poet didn't just say that Cretans
are liars; he said that Cretans are *always* liars. So if a Cretan said that Cretans are *always* liars and then
a writer verbally inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent deity, who cannot lie,
said that "this testimony is true," then it would necessarily be true that
Cretans are ALWAYS liars,
if it were not for the following logical problem: If it is true that Cretans are always
liars, then it would not have been possible for the Cretan's statement of
“Cretans are always liars” to be true, because, as a Cretan himself, he would
always lie and whatever he said would be untrue.
So why did "Paul" say that a statement that
cannot
be true was true?
Since "Paul" presumably wrote by the verbal inspiration of an
omniscient, omnipotent deity, then that makes this deity responsible for an
obvious error. What I really think is that Nanson can see the
problem, but he is like all other biblical "apologists": he doesn't want to
admit that the Bible contains obvious errors. (Farrell
Till: Jftill@theramp.net ) Posting by
Christian Paul Nanson: If I were
to say, "Atheists are always jerks,"
would I be offering a general observation, or an absolute? Apparently, in Till's mind it could only
be the latter. So, if I my
observation had been that atheists have a tendency to be complete jerks, I could
not state the observation in this manner without fear of being misunderstand; I
would have to qualify it as "Most atheists tend to act like jerks some of the
time," or run the risk of being interpreted to mean, "All atheists are always
jerks all of the time." (Paul
Nanson: think@eskimo.com ) Posting by
Farrell Till: If you
said in Greek that "Atheists are always jerks" and used a term that meant
literally always, and then if a writer who was verbally inspired by an
omniscient, omnipotent deity said, "This testimony is true," then why wouldn't
that have to mean that all atheists are jerks? Dardedar has posted a message (see next posting) that gives Dr. Norman
Geisler's effort to explain this logical error. If there is nothing to it, why do you suppose that an
Inerrantist apologist of Geisler's stature bothered to mention it? Huh, Paul? (Farrell
Till: Jftill@theramp.net ) Posting by
Darrel Henschell: For
laughs, here is Norman Geisler's excuse for this problem. From his co-written book When Critics Ask: TITUS
1:12 -- Doesn't Paul involve himself in a paradox or contradiction here? Problem:
[snip] Solution:
Paul seemed to be aware of this dilemma and quickly added, "This testimony is
true" (v.13). In other words, the Cretans generally lie, but
at least on this one occasion a Cretan uttered the truth when he characterized
the Cretans as liars. In this way the paradox is broken, and no falsehood is
thereby included in Scripture. (When
Critics Ask, Norman Geisler & Thomas Howe, Victor Books, Illinois, 1992,
page 507) That's it. See the clear obfuscation here?
"...Cretans generally
lie..." The scripture doesn't say Cretans "generally
lie", it says "Cretans are ALWAYS liars". (Darrel
Henschell: Dardedar@aol.com ) Posting by
Kyle Kelley: If you make a statement, most people assume
that your words have meaning.
If you say that "Atheists are always jerks", most people would assume that you
meant that "all atheists are always jerks all of the time." If this what not
your intent, then you clearly expressed yourself poorly. Please do some further
investigation concerning this passage. This passage does not mean only that
Cretans are liars. It means that Cretans are *always* liars. The word "always" means perpetually, incessantly,
invariably, at any and every time. It literally means that Cretans are liars all of the time. (Kyle
Kelly: dkkelly@galaxy.galstar.com
)
Posting by Byron Smith: It seems
that you're trying to suggest that the terms "all" and "always" are not
absolutes, allowing for generalization to exist when they are used without
modifiers (even OVERgeneralization is generalization on some level, and
therefore not absolutely inclusive). Under these rules
it is not an error to state that "all Inerrantists are always highly irrational
and prone to psychological afflictions," because we know that some are
(some might even say that it is common), and according to these ((Christian))
rules the terms "all" and "always" have not established complete inclusion.
Of course to accept the rules we must redefine the terms "all" and "always,"
both terms being absolute
by definition. So, basically,
you're argument boils down to nothing more than an attempt at redefining the terms "all" and "always."
I know what "all" and "always" both
mean (as do virtually all preschoolers), and I have a few dictionaries with which
to check it out, just in case. I'm
not buying it, and I'm quite certain I'm not in the minority--not by a long
shot! (Byron
Smith:
IDIC001@aol.com
) “Paul Was Rebuking Jews, Not
Cretans” Roger Hutchinson posted this Christian view: In v 10, we have people identified
as "they of the circumcision."
They of the circumcision would be Jews.
In this case, it appears that Paul is referring to Jewish converts. In v
11, Paul says that these people profit by telling people what they want to hear. One of the Jewish converts, a
prophet or one held in high esteem,
made a statement about Cretans.
The statement was what we in today's time would call a racial slur.
Paul says that this is true -- Not that Cretans are liars but that a Jewish
convert actually made this statement.
Because of this, Paul tells Titus to oppose such talk and rebuke the
Jewish converts so that they would be sound in the faith. Certainly, Paul does
not mean that a Cretan made the statement.
The context does not allow it. Paul also cannot be condoning
the statement. If he were, why
would he tell Titus to rebuke the person who made the statement? (Roger Hutchinson: RHutchin@aol.com )
Responses: Posting by Tom McCammon: Wow! If it doesn't fit, force it, if it
breaks, it needed replacing anyway... Again, you assume they're Jewish... You've
picked over the text for the context that suits you, ignoring v. 5: "For this cause I left thee in CRETE...”
among who? the Masai? the Inuits? could it be ... THE CRETANS? (Tom
McCammon: mccammon@scott.net ) Posting by
Farrell Till: Oh, the
context
doesn't allow it, does it? One of
their own said, "Cretans are always liars." If the statement meant what you want it to mean (that the
person who said it wasn't a Cretan), then why didn't Paul say, "One of these
vain talkers from among the circumcision said..."? Furthermore, Paul
didn't tell Titus to rebuke "the person who made the statement." He said, "This testimony is true. For this reason rebuke THEM sharply."
Them, Roger, THEM! Not "him."
Certainly Paul wasn't
telling Titus to look up Epimenides and rebuke him for saying that Cretans are
always liars. He was saying that
the testimony of Epimenides was true and since his testimony was true and
Cretans are liars, they (the Cretan troublemakers) should be rebuked sharply.
Undoubtedly, even "those of the circumcision" were also Cretans, and why not? There were Jewish conclaves all over the
known world at this time.
Once again, Roger, you're leaning over backwards to keep from admitting the
obvious.
(Farrell
Till: Jftill@theramp.net )
Posting by
Farrell Till: Well, what
else would we expect from Roger? He overlooks the fact that the name of the
poet who said this is known. He was
Epimenides of Knossos, and he was a Cretan. "Paul" wasn't talking about just "those of the circumcision."
Verse ten says, "There are also many rebellious people, idle talkers, and
deceivers, ESPECIALLY THOSE OF THE
CIRCUMCISION...." That has to mean
that Paul had under consideration
others
besides Jewish converts. Paul said "one of them, their very own prophet, said,
"Cretans are always liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons." The statement makes no sense if it is
twisted to mean that one of these Jewish converts said that Cretans are always
liars. It would have made sense
only if "their very own prophet" had said, "Jewish converts are always liars." (Farrell
Till: Jftill@theramp.net ) “Paul Wasn’t Rebuking, He
was Joking” Paul Nanson posted this Christian
view: Till and others want to look at
these passages in a vacuum; I can not.
Yes, the text is to be taken literally when that is the obvious way to
take it; my argument is that this is a quotation or a cliché, and filled with
irony and sarcasm. "Cretans are always liars" is obviously a turn of phrase
current in first century Palestine, and should be approached as appropriate to
clichés and other figures of speech. To ignore the obvious and claim error based
on some obscure literal hermeneutic
is asinine, in my opinion. It's "lame," as they say. (Paul Nanson:
think@eskimo.com
)
Responses: Posting by
Kyle Kelly: What
"obscure literal hermeneutic" are we using, Paul? Are we to assume that a passage is to be
taken literally ONLY when it would not result in an obvious contradiction?
Please describe your hermeneutical
method in more detail. (Kyle Kelly: dkkelly@galaxy.galstar.com )
Posting by
Byron Smith: That would
be a compelling argument had I not been aware of the second half to the
statement that you have repeatedly ignored. The passage goes on to state that the
cliché is
true. Whether it is cliché or not becomes
irrelevant
as soon as the Bible makes that claim. Cliché or not, the Bible says it is
true--period, and that claim is obviously untenable. (Byron
Smith:
IDIC001@aol.com
) Posting by
Kyle Kelly: Still, to
claim that "Paul" was being sarcastic stretches credulity.
There is certainly nothing in the text to indicate that he was being
sarcastic. In fact, the only reason Nanson proposes that "Paul" was being
sarcastic is because his previous approach (i.e. “always doesn’t mean always”) was shown to be
false. (Kyle Kelly:
dkkelly@galaxy.galstar.com)
End of Transmission From “Cyberspace”
*******************
So, how does a confirmed Biblical contradiction impact a major Christian belief such as the resurrection? It impacts it by destroying the theory of Biblical Inerrancy. With that out of the way and safely buried, it becomes more difficult to casually dismiss tons of contrary data via the simplistic “God said it, I believe it, that settles it��� routine. With Biblical Inerrancy destroyed, each and every “verse of scripture” ceases to be divine, becoming instead mere uninspired historical opinion and having to stand or fall on its own merits as such. The Christian chant of “God said it...” DOGma just got ran over by logical KARma. So the next time a Christian tells you that the New Testament says Jesus arose from the dead, so what! The same New Testament also says “Cretans are always liars.”
******************* Author’s NoteIn the years since, some Christians have claimed to have found an “out” for this contradiction. They say that Paul calls the Cretans “liars” and being a liar does NOT preclude that occasionally they may tell the truth, just like being a “murderer” does NOT mean that one is murdering anyone and everyone 24/7. My response to this is that Paul does not merely say they are “liars” but that they are ALWAYS liars, which to me DOES preclude them ever telling a truth.
|
