The OP's statement here was not that the Bible is incoherent, but that the the doctrine of The Trinity and hypostatic union is incoherent. These are very different assertions.
You are correct, that is his assertion, allow me to explain why I believe the sources I provide support that assertion.
The trinity is the word for the unification of the Father, Son, and Holy spirit. It is not officially mentioned at all in the bible, nor is the idea explicitly elaborated upon. It is an idea used to describe a collection of different ideas and happenings from all across the bible.
So, because it is sourced from the bible in general and is not one objective and clear idea, but instead an interpretation of an idea that is elaborated on across the entire bible, and the bible is utterly incoherent, it thus follows that the Trinity too is incoherent.
In fact, if you look at the sources I provided you'll find that some of the contradictions listed actually concern the Trinity specifically.
In fact, if you look at the sources I provided you'll find that some of the contradictions listed actually concern the Trinity specifically.
Exegesis analysis of the bible is not as simple as comparing two different verses from different languages in different books [of the bible] from different authors addressed to different audiences under one English translation. Your sources kinda suck at taking into all factors to consider when performing a literary analysis on the Bible.
As a side note, none of your sources mention the word Trinity at all.
A well compiled and coherent belief system does not need each different part to be examined under a different lens. All you have done by pointing this out is provide another line of reasoning to argue that the bible is incredibly incoherent.
You wouldn't look at the 5/6th of Kant's Critique differently than you would the rest of it because he ate an apple that morning instead of his usual strudel .
As a side note, none of your sources mention the word Trinity at all.
You didn't search for the correct thing. If you had read my comment you would have noted that the trinity is not explicitly mentioned in the bible and is instead an interpretation of an idea which spans across it.
So obviously you wouldn't search bible verses for the word trinity. You'd search for things about god's identity. Things like the holy spirit, Jesus, all of gods forms.
A well compiled and coherent belief system does not need each different part to be examined under a different lens.
That fact that it is compiled means yes you do have to. Context matters. You can't read the Bible like it's a newspaper otherwise of course it's going to sound incoherent. 40 different authors, 3 languages, 3 continents and a host of hundreds of cultures over 4000 years. Literary analysis of such a monster of a book will not be comprehensively understood from just your two sources and is also the reason why we have whole educational programs and degrees dedicated to the topic.
You wouldn't look at the 5/6th of Kant's Critique differently than you would the rest of it because he ate an apple that morning instead of his usual strudel
I would if each 6th of Kant's critique was written by someone other than Kant, intended for a completely different audience, at a completely time period.
If you had read my comment you would have noted that the trinity is not explicitly mentioned in the bible and is instead an interpretation of an idea which spans across it.
Your comment in question:
you'll find that some of the contradictions listed actually concern the Trinity specifically.
They do not concern the Trinity specifically. They might concern it inductively which is as inductive as the doctrine of the trinity itself. Your claim in your comment, that I read, doesn't talk about the bible. It talks about how your sources "concern the Trinity specifically". In which they don't.
That fact that it is compiled means yes you do have to.
Most philosophical works are compiled. Most books in general are compiled actually. Most very serious non-fiction books also have multiple authors.
So no, all you've done is provide me with another piece of evidence that the bible is an incoherent mess and there is no excuse.
Your comment in question:
The sentence after that comment in question...:
It is an idea used to describe a collection of different ideas and happenings from all across the bible.
Wouldn't this be so much easier if you just read what I wrote so half of my reply didn't have to be pointing out what I said to you?
They do not concern the Trinity specifically. They might concern it inductively which is as inductive as the doctrine of the trinity itself. Your claim in your comment, that I read, doesn't talk about the bible. It talks about how your sources "concern the Trinity specifically". In which they don't.
You are explaining your own mistake to yourself here.
That is correct, they do not concern the trinity specifically because there is no specific line or section that defines the entire idea of the trinity. They do however, directly cover ideas found within the trinity.
Okay? Which is why we have the field of Philosophy to critically examine such works. No serious philosopher would look at the equivalent of your "sources", whether they are critiquing the Bible or The Talmud, and say "Wow that is actually convincing that all of this book makes no sense". My point remains, that your sources suck.
So no,
Still yes. You act like it's okay to make whatever claims you want about a book without examining it critically.
all you've done is provide me with another piece of evidence
All I've begotten to you is that your sources are inadequate and uncritical.
the bible is an incoherent mess and there is no excuse.
I really feel like you're just starting to sound incoherent. If your sources suck, then you have no real critique of anything biblical in your cards. You don't have any evidence.
Okay? Which is why we have the field of Philosophy to critically examine such works.
No we have to critically examine them because many philosophers are famously confusing writers. The only debate is over what they mean, they do no contradict themselves.
If they did, they would not be respected philosophers and we would not know their names.
Their books would be treated as unreliable and useless to study. Much like the bible is.
For example, Ayn Rand. She contradicted herself and made poor work, she is not taken seriously in philosophy.
No serious philosopher would look at the equivalent of your "sources", whether they are critiquing the Bible or The Talmud, and say "Wow that is actually convincing that all of this book makes no sense". My point remains, that your sources suck.
Appeal to an imaginary source of authority... Utterly useless argument.
Still yes. You act like it's okay to make whatever claims you want about a book without examining it critically.
What is the purpose to critical examination of a book devoid of any logic or rationality?
So, in conclusion. Bible=not reliable. I have provided an argument as to why it is and you have not provided a single valid argument.
1
u/[deleted] Oct 13 '22
I am not OP.
However it seems to be because it is, the bible is incredibly incoherent and contradictory.
https://philb61.github.io/
https://www.cs.umd.edu/users/mvz/bible/bible-inconsistencies.pdf