tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post7361964780007102860..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: cock crowing contradictionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-17744452874206637352008-07-02T12:11:00.000-04:002008-07-02T12:11:00.000-04:00That the first crowing was understood to be a midd...<I>That the first crowing was understood to be a middle-of-the-night crowing that the other three Gospels did not need to mention? This is wild speculation, is it not?</I><BR/><BR/>It's hardly wild speculation, but a perfectly reasonable thought. It by no means can be <I>proven</I>, per se, but it cannot be discounted as "wild speculation." As linked by Dave Armstrong in his article, <A HREF="http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/20" REL="nofollow">this explanation</A> goes over the reasoning as to why this would be suggested (scroll down or search for "“FACTUAL” CONTRADICTION #56"). It provides historical information regarding the point. It also mentions at least one other Scriptural passage which seems speak in the language of ignoring the first nightly crowing of the rooster.<BR/><BR/>That being said, I find Augustine's explanation, also linked by Mr. Armstrong, to be the "best" - placed in quotation makrs because of what I mean by the word in this particular case.<BR/><BR/>You see, there are at least two ways to approach the Bible (and probably more - only two are important for my point). One is to approach it with faith, and the other to appproach it with skepticism. Now I do not intend here to argue for "blind faith," or to try to consider how one chooses which approach to take. In other words, I'm not trying to tell you, "oh, you just need to look at the Bible with faith." I think that would be a bit absurd of a statement to make to one who is not Christian or at least theistic in his beliefs.<BR/><BR/>What I am trying to do is simpler. Let us simply assume for a moment that the Bible is indeed not of Divine origin. Now if this is the case, then it would almost certainly be riddled with errors, and this may as well be one of them. Of course, there are countless other arguments one would make to oppose to this position - that is, to attempt to show the authenticity of the Christian faith - but this is not the place for that. For now, let us simply say that if the Bible is merely of man, this could easily be an error.<BR/><BR/>However, let us now assume for a moment that the Scriptures <I>are</I> of divine origin. Now one approaching the Bible with faith is going to look at the cock's crowing not as a difficulty, but as a mystery to be dwelt on. A monk noticing this "discrepency" will see it as something to meditate upon - as something to draw him into deep thought, and to delve deeper into the revelation of God. Such a person will end up like Augustine - learning something profound from it (in Augustine's case, the concept that one's sins are already festering in his heart before they manifest themselves in action). Now if the Bible truly <I>is</I> of God, then it makes perfect sense that such passages as this would exist. If the Bible truly <I>was</I> inspired by the Holy Spirit, and given for our edification, enlightenment, and for our prayerful reflection - if it was truly given as a means for God to speak anew to the heart of each individual ever to live - then such "discrepencies" as this would make perfect sense because they would be there for this very purpose. This does not mean they are actually inconsistent, but that to seek the true meaning behind the veil of the apparent will reveal the true meaning of the words.<BR/><BR/>In other words, where a skeptic sees a seeming contracition, a person of faith sees a question: what is God trying to tell me here? The skeptic misses this message altogether, for he sees the "contradiction" and stops there, whereas the believer doesn't, but moves forward asking, "why?" It reminds me a bit of the sciences. So often, Christians have been accused of answering seeming contradictions between the sciences and the Bible by rejecting the science. Now if believers had always done this, so much of our scientific knowledge as we have it would not have come to be known. It was those who looked past the mere surface of these issues and plowed forward to make the discoveries which we take for granted today. <BR/><BR/>I mention this in the hopes of showing a bit of a hypocrisy in the approach the skeptic takes towards the Bible - or at least in his ruling out of others taking this approach. Physicists did not stop pursuing quantam mechanics when they found contradictions with Newtonian physics, and we are much the more knowledgeable for it. They did not simply say, "these contradict, so they cannot be so." Rather, they said, "these do not seem to fit - why? What does this mean?" So too, the man of faith looks at two seeming contradictions in the Bible and asks, "What is God trying to tell me?"<BR/><BR/>Peace, and God blessShanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10766529921032365200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-90739294056663020692008-07-02T03:04:00.000-04:002008-07-02T03:04:00.000-04:00I gave it a shot, offering a possible explanation:...I gave it a shot, offering a possible explanation:<BR/><BR/>http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2008/07/st-peters-denials-and-cocks-crows.htmlDave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-69120681759234443892008-06-23T16:57:00.000-04:002008-06-23T16:57:00.000-04:00One more thing: Matthew, Luke, and John are explic...One more thing: Matthew, Luke, and John are explicit that the crowing took place immediately after the third denial. In the exact same place in Matthew, the author mentions the second crowing (implicit in its immediacy). This second crowing can only be the same crowing that the other three mention. If the second crowing took place immediately after the third denial, the first crowing must have taken place before the third denial, which would contradict what Jesus said would happen in Matthew, Luke, and John. What am I supposedly missing here? That the first crowing was understood to be a middle-of-the-night crowing that the other three Gospels did not need to mention? This is wild speculation, is it not?Jason Longhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10288789613402007006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-40569885818019038892008-06-23T06:59:00.000-04:002008-06-23T06:59:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jason Longhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10288789613402007006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-58284624794336367222008-06-23T06:00:00.000-04:002008-06-23T06:00:00.000-04:00Rachel,I have made note of my careless wording on ...Rachel,<BR/><BR/>I have made note of my careless wording on what you speak of in the first two paragraphs and the close to last paragraph. And it was indeed my intent to say that the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are the oldest surviving records that contain these particular verses.<BR/><BR/>Regarding your objections on the corruption of the texts, one can hardly object to the fact that there are hundreds of variants among the papyrus manuscripts - and that the vaticanus can hardly be cited as an untouched, reliable codex.<BR/><BR/>Your "attention-getter" argument for the second crowing would seem acceptable to me if the second crowing wasn't plainly in the text already. Furthermore, this "dawn" crowing is fairly representative of a how-it-could-have-been scenario.<BR/><BR/><I>Where does it say they had to be consecutive crowings</I><BR/><BR/>It only makes sense that the second crowing wouldn't have taken place much later, otherwise there would be no reason to mention it.<BR/><BR/><I>or that both crowings had to be AFTER all 3 denials</I><BR/><BR/>Matthew can perhaps be interpreted loosely in your favor, but the intent should be clear. Luke 22:34 and John 13:38 are more than clear that there would be no crowings until there were three denials.<BR/><BR/>And yes, I did seriously err by stating that the resolution contained only one crowing if the first were removed (even though technically it does) because it does mention that the crowing in 14:72 was the second crowing. Still, the text in 14:72 clearly states that the second crowing took place. This only makes sense if there was a first crowing (14:68).<BR/><BR/>I plan to comment more on this later.Jason Longhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10288789613402007006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-92135820624198508042008-06-23T02:29:00.000-04:002008-06-23T02:29:00.000-04:00Jason,When all else fails, he claims that the Bibl...Jason,<BR/><BR/><I>When all else fails, he claims that the Bible says something God did not want it to say.</I><BR/><BR/>"When all else fails"? I'm not sure how you get that. It was noted that the ancient mss are <I>not</I> unanimous about the verse, so it's hardly some sort of desperate stretch. The rest of your comments in that paragraph assume that Holding just made up the possibility that Mark 14:68 was not in the original, which is completely false.<BR/><BR/>Later, you say,<BR/><BR/><I>The apologist has to omit part from one version <B>without any justification whatsoever,</B></I><BR/><BR/>What?! Again, Holding clearly said that there is a signficant lack of unanimity about this verse. You yourself noted that it is not in either the Codex Sinaiticus OR the Codex Vaticanus. You may not agree with his "justification", but to say there isn't any at all is simply false.<BR/><BR/>Your "note" on this point is at best confusing and at worst full of errors. First you say that Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are "the two oldest (currently) discovered manuscripts from the fourth century." Surely you don't mean that these two are the oldest mss of any text in the Bible. Do you mean the oldest of the NT, or even Mark? Both of those are wrong too. The only way this could be right is if you mean they are the oldest mss containing the verses in question. But later in your endnote you say, referring to Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, "the closest documents we have to the originals are heavily edited copies made centuries after the events they report." So do you really think that these two Codices are the oldest extant documents we have of the NT? Because that is obviously wrong. Or do you have some qualification to your statement that would make it correct? Beyond that, the mss that do predate Aleph and B are extremely similar to them, showing that they aren't as "corrupt" as you and the KJV Onlyists try to make them out to be.<BR/><BR/><I>Of what relevance is the second crowing, and why is it worth mentioning?</I><BR/><BR/>As Holding suggests later, if Mark is in fact reporting the event more precisely (which would make sense if he got it from Peter himself), then he tells about the second crowing because that's how it happened. Perhaps it is tied to the later point about roosters crowing all day. Just one crow might not come to Peter's attention, it may have seemed like "background noise". But two crows might have been more of an attention-getter to remind Peter of Jesus' words. In any event, it doesn't change the fact that, as Holding said, "strictly speaking, there is no contradiction". If Peter denied before one crowing, he denied before two. <BR/><BR/><I>and offered a weak explanation for the mention of two crowings instead of one,</I><BR/><BR/>What explanation are you referring to, specifically, and how is it weak?<BR/><BR/><I>we must consider whether Jesus actually said that the cock would crow once or twice in the other three Gospels.</I><BR/><BR/>Matthew is ambivalent, Jesus simply says "before the rooster crows". John says "a rooster will not crow" until Peter denies him. Luke says that "a rooster will not crow today" until Peter denies him. If we take Holding's comment that the "second" crowing was usually associated with the dawn, Luke's version makes perfect sense and helps us interpret John's version. If roosters were crowing frequently, then such a thing probably wouldn't stand out. But if it was the second/dawn crowing, i.e. a "special" crowing, then Matthew's version makes sense as well, where he has Jesus saying that Peter will deny him before "the" rooster crows.<BR/><BR/><I>not one of the four Gospels registers the accurate account of the alleged two consecutive crowings after the third denial,</I><BR/><BR/>Where does it say they had to be consecutive crowings, or that both crowings had to be AFTER all 3 denials?<BR/><BR/><I>but did fall victim to simplified oral tradition when recording the actual crowing.</I><BR/><BR/>Not quite, because Mark 14:72 says, "a rooster crowed a second time". The first crow may not have been recorded as to when exactly the crow happened relative to Peter's 3 denials, but Mark DOES recorded it as having happened.<BR/><BR/><I>So why did the author mention two crowings in the prediction when the detail was not important enough to include in the occurrence</I><BR/><BR/>But he did include it in the occurrence. See above.<BR/><BR/><I>and not important enough for the other three authors to include in the prediction or the occurrence?</I><BR/><BR/>As has already been stated, probably because Mark was getting his info directly from Peter, who would obviously have remembered the event very precisely. The others remembered the basic facts, so they wrote what they remembered, which was accurate.<BR/><BR/><I>the telephone game</I><BR/><BR/>*eyeroll*<BR/><BR/><I>The apologist, on the other hand, would have his audience believe that three of the Gospels are modified and simplified oral traditions that are not fully consistent with the actual events</I><BR/><BR/>Huh? Matthew, Luke, and John are in fact "fully consistent with the actual events". There is no inconsistency. Beyond that, all of the Gospels are "modified and simplified" from Jesus' time on earth. Clearly none of them wrote down every single word and deed of Jesus. But none of it was "modified" or "simplified" <I>inaccurately</I>. If a reporter gives the highlights of an Obama speech w/o quoting the entire speech verbatim in the exact same tone and manner as Obama did, is that reporter being "inconsistent with the actual events" or inaccurately modifying and simplifying the speech?<BR/><BR/><I>He readily admits that oral tradition is fallible, played a role in the formation of the current text, and was responsible for crucial details being left out,</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, we all agree that God used fallible people/instruments/methods to write the Bible. That doesn't necessitate that the Bible is fallible. And how did a second rooster crow become a "crucial detail"?<BR/><BR/><I>the earliest manuscripts, which he has never seen,</I><BR/><BR/>*eyeroll again*<BR/><BR/><I>much later in this book,</I><BR/><BR/>What book?Rachelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00990773174601680586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-61077573943008857382008-06-22T12:42:00.000-04:002008-06-22T12:42:00.000-04:00Ah, I see where I mis-read you. I thought you were...Ah, I see where I mis-read you. I thought you were suggesting the earliest gospels were written centuries after the events they describe. Clearly you are referring to later codexes that had extra additions and reports that were indeed centuries after the events.GordonBloodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16426901390201595020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-75883403565006445992008-06-22T12:03:00.000-04:002008-06-22T12:03:00.000-04:00gordonblood,First, I have raid Ehrman's book twice...gordonblood,<BR/><BR/>First, I have raid Ehrman's book twice, but I fail to see your point. Ehrman does not argue for inerrancy, so of course many of the changes are going to be relatively unimportant. Of course whether the cock crowed once or twice is irrelevant to the meaning of the story. However, it is highly relevant to the errancy debate.<BR/><BR/>Second, you seem to have misinterpreted what I wrote. I did not say the edits were centuries after the reports (even though this is actually the case for the sinaiticus - I would expect you to know this before responding), but rather that the reports were centuries after the events. There can be no doubt that the Vaticanus and especially the Sinaiticus are heavily edited documents made centuries after the events they report. It is stupid to argue for inerrancy in the original documents when this is the case.Jason Longhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10288789613402007006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-43753605588006196322008-06-22T11:00:00.000-04:002008-06-22T11:00:00.000-04:00To be clear I dont not accept either biblical infa...To be clear I dont not accept either biblical infallibility or inerrancy, so dont try to paint me as such on this very brief response. <BR/><BR/>"Furthermore, we begin to see the stupidity in arguing for biblical inerrancy when the closest documents we have to the originals are heavily edited copies made centuries after the events they report."<BR/><BR/>No textual scholar would agree with that statement. Are there edits? Yes. But are they "heavily editted" made "centuries" after the events they report. No. My God if you're going to post on this site I would have thought you wuld have read "Misquoting Jesus by Ehrman, but even he makes it clear that almost all the edits with afew exceptions are unimportant. Again, I dont have a dog in this race in terms of defending biblical inerrancy or whatnot.GordonBloodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16426901390201595020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-81793970344131562892008-06-22T07:06:00.000-04:002008-06-22T07:06:00.000-04:00Also see "Bible Errors" by Dave E. Matson which po...Also see "<A HREF="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/common_sense/bible_errors.html" REL="nofollow">Bible Errors</A>" by Dave E. Matson which points out the range of questions raised by the differing Gospel stories of Peter's denials and the cock's crows.Edwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.com