Mr. Hodge’s Dodge from Proving a Bible Contradiction

Someone didn’t like my 50 Alleged Bible Contradictions Refuted.  Specifically he zoomed in on #22: “Where did Joseph and Mary live before the birth of Jesus?”

He’s an Emmy Award Nominee and that’s a picture of him taking a selfie reading a New York Times Bestseller.

His latest comment was the following:

Matt 2:23 leaves no room for the possibility that the author didn’t believe that Joseph and Mary had never lived in Nazareth before settling there after their return from Egypt. That doesn’t mean they couldn’t have, but that still means the author was mistaken about the facts he was asserting. That’s a meaningful contradiction.
Since this issue and the Herod timetable issue are so closely related, I think they should be discussed together as one significant contradiction. Breaking it up into two issues makes it look like you’re trying to minimize the impact that they have together, especially putting a lot of trivial, and easy-to-refute supposed contradictions in between them.
As for my bibliology, I believe the scriptures to be the inspired word of God and the infallible authority of God.
What about your bibliology? Do you believe in biblical inerrancy? Do you believe that since the Bible is the word of a God, it cannot contain errors? If so, then how would you be able to tell if there was an actual contradiction or error in the Bible? If you can’t answer that question, how could your refutation of any biblical contradiction be intellectually honest?

My response:

1. “Matt 2:23 leaves no room for the possibility that the author didn’t believe that Joseph and Mary had never lived in Nazareth before settling there after their return from Egypt. That doesn’t mean they couldn’t have, but that still means the author was mistaken about the facts he was asserting. That’s a meaningful contradiction.”
   Response: It is not a meaningful contradiction…because you have yet to demonstrate it is a contradiction. Again you have not proven that Matthew nor Matthew 2:23 claim that Joseph and Mary settled in Nazareth *for the first time* which would be necessary for your claim that there is a contradiction. So you have yet to prove Matthew was mistaken. It is ironic that you asserted “#22 avoids the bulk of that contradiction” but you avoid the bulk of proving your claim that Matthew teaches that Joseph and Mary settled in Nazareth *for the first time.*
2. “Since this issue and the Herod timetable issue are so closely related, I think they should be discussed together as one significant contradiction. Breaking it up into two issues makes it look like you’re trying to minimize the impact that they have together, especially putting a lot of trivial, and easy-to-refute supposed contradictions in between them.”
   Response: I am not trivializing anything. That is incorrect of you to attribute that to me. First and foremost a little background: I am responding to an internet lists of Bible contradictions online by skeptics as they have stated them and the verses they cited. If you read those posts carefully you will see that. So the fact that the skeptics didn’t put these two issues together is why I didn’t deal with the two issues together. So it is wrong to attribute that I didn’t address both issues together is out of some ulterior motive of trivializing them. Secondly let’s take it for granted your claim that I am breaking up those two issues and looking at them one at a time. That doesn’t mean one is trivializing the issue; that does not logically follow. In fact the opposite is the case: because I am not trivializing the issues I desire to look at one of the issues individually with closer analysis. Thirdly both issues are distinct and one contradiction does not necessarily imply the other so you are incorrect to state they are “one significant contradiction.” They are not one contradiction because they are distinct issues. Think about it: Regardless of where one land in one’s view concerning the question of Nazareth that has no bearing on Jesus’ birth in relations to Herod’s timetable. The vice versa is also true: The timetable of Herod’s life and reign in relations to Jesus’ birth does necessitate whether Mary and Joseph went to Nazareth before or after Jesus’ birth. In light of that logically it is a red herring of you to pull up the issue of Herod’s timetable instead of you proving your claim that Matthew teaches that Joseph and Mary settled in Nazareth *for the first time* in the text of Matthew. Also talking about other Bible contradictions refuted in the list as easy to refute contradictions is also a red herring from the subject at hand. By the way your claim of a contradiction concerning the timing of Mary and Nazareth for the first time has also been easy to refute because the passages does not provide support for your claim in Matthew. Not only is it ironic that you asserted “#22 avoids the bulk of that contradiction” by avoiding building an actual support for your claim that Matthew teaches that Joseph and Mary settled in Nazareth *for the first time* but it is ironic your red herring further avoid the bulk of the refutation of contradiction #22 altogether. From reading your comment you have not read the bulk of that post refuting Bible contradiction #22 carefully.
3. “As for my bibliology, I believe the scriptures to be the inspired word of God and the infallible authority of God.
   What about your bibliology? Do you believe in biblical inerrancy? Do you believe that since the Bible is the word of a God, it cannot contain errors? If so, then how would you be able to tell if there was an actual contradiction or error in the Bible? If you can’t answer that question, how could your refutation of any biblical contradiction be intellectually honest?”
   Response: Scripture is inspired word of God and the infallible authority of God in my bibliology. Scripture’s own bibliology does not teach the Word contain errors but the opposite. I have to be honest before God to believe what the Scripture teaches in its content. My answer the question “If so, then how would you be able to tell if there was an actual contradiction or error in the Bible?” would be to point out that it commits a complex question fallacy in light of Scripture’s own bibliology, kind of like someone asking you ‘when was the last time you beat your wife?” In regards to inerrancy Monergism Books have resources.

Some guys you start graciously but they interpret that as being that they are in the right.  It takes a firm handling of them to make the point.  It seems his own picture is him virtue signaling the kind of person he is.  But then the title of the book refers to something everyone has…and it stinks.