I don’t read books that attempt to reconcile every tension found in the canon of Scripture for the simple reasons that (1) reality is often too complex and (2) language is too complex. So, for instance, when the Apostle Paul says we are saved by faith and not by works and James the Just says we are saved by works I do not see this as a contradiction. These phrases are shaped by authorial intent, intended audience, historical context, literary context, semantic range, speech act including the locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary, the preservation of the text (textual criticism), the shaping of a text in canon, the shaping of interpretation in tradition, the reader’s context and response, the criticisms and rebuttals over the ages, and the overall hermeneutical spiral that can never separate “meaning” from the interaction between the text and the reader in a given time, location, and context.
In other words: reading the Bible like a fundamentalist is a failure to understand the complexities of reading. Language is more than dictionary or lexical entries. Let’s get that straight.
Sadly, the so-called “Reason Project” has put together a massive chart of Bible contradictions that is as absurd and short sighted as a big book of Bible answers (Norm Geisler, that’s for you). While some people may get excited about this chart (see it here) it seems like a big waste of time. It is as much a waste a time as reading a chart of Bible answers.
It seems like the “Reason Project” is just another group of fundamentalist of an equal and opposite stripe. So much for using reason. Try again.
the archives near Emmaus 
It is a waste of time.
It’s amazing how much energy they spent creating a chart that may unnerve 5% of Christians. They assume people care about their opinion, that they read the Bible like fundamentalist, that language and interpretation is static, that Christian commentators agree on the meaning if the texts cited, and that Christianity is a book religion not than a Spirit religion. Fools.
I got a laugh out of this (the chart and your post about it). Loved that last paragraph. Don’t know about calling people fools, though. Seems like there is a verse about that. However, it is contradicted by some other verses, so don’t worry about it (in fact, I’d bet money it is one of the arcs on the chart!). On second thought, maybe I wouldn’t bet money. Seems like there is a verse about that. Or is that one contradicted, too?
Somehow we have to take the text seriously without taking ourselves too seriously. This is the great tension.
Somewhere there is a website that claims to have identified 1001 Bible Contradictions. Rather than trying to tackle every one of them, my approach would be to take the most ridiculous one I can find to show what fools the compilers are. Then I would gamble by taking a really tough one and presenting a reasonable solution just to show it can be done. But I’d still bet the effort wouldn’t convert or convince a single person.
There is a passage against calling someone
ρακαμωρε (Mt. 5.22). Fool is an English go-at-it, but not the same thing and I doubt it refers to mere name calling.Yes, that was part of the humor of it. I noticeably disregarded your comments about the complexity of language.
BTW, the word “fool” in Matthew 5:22 corresponds to the Gk. MOROS, from which we derive “moron.”
Good call,(that was a case study in flippantly responding) I looked at the wrong part of the text. Point stands.