[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, as they would say in the arts and literary sciences, NR's posts tell us a narrative, in this case of someone who believes the bible to be free of contradictions . Hence anyone who seeks to understand if it does, would do bad to rely on him alone.

Thesnowman's post points out nicely that there is some ambiguity here, and it doesn't really have to go further than that - the obvious conclusion from my point and his point would have to be that it could be a contradiction, but not necessarily so, and it requires more study atleast. From NR we get a fairly bad article telling us there can't be one, and suddenly we most likely strawman out of the original question. Your point is a good one imo.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, and its typical NotReadian logic.

Someone who believes the bible is perfect has reason to believe it contains no contradictions. Therefore NotReady concludes it has no contradictions and claims this lack of contradictions as a reason to believe the bible is true.

That would be a breathtaking enough abuse of logic but it makes the other huge fallacy of confusing contradiction->false with no-contradiction->true

chez