The author further goes on to explain that some contradictions are simply matters of skeptics trying to apply "sweeping generalizations" when such an application is not intended. To use the author's own example, when a skeptic notes that the Bible says "thou shalt not kill" even though Yahweh and his henchmen spend much of the Bible punting people left and right, what the Bible actually means is "thou shalt not kill except in war, to punish extreme crimes, or if Yahweh gives you a note saying it's okay". It's not a contradiction, it's just that when God said not to kill, he didn't really mean it. That's an interesting position for a Christian author to take, don't you think? One of the Ten Commandments can be qualified at will to justify any action taken on behalf of God and we can't oppose that logic lest we be guilty of applying sweeping generalizations. And to think atheists are accused of moral relativism.
The most dazzling facet of this sparkling gem of pathetic argumentation, however, comes under the heading of "The Law of Non-Contradiction - A Problem For Non-Christians". Lest you think I'm manipulating the author's words, I'm going to quote him wholesale:
The critic asserts that the Bible is false because it contains contradictions. Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of this claim is that it actually backfires on the critic. The reason is this: only if the Bible is true, would contradictions be unacceptable!...
According to the Bible, all truth is in God (Colossians 2:3; Proverbs 1:7), and God cannot deny (go against) Himself (2 Timothy 2:13). So, it makes sense that truth cannot go against itself. Since the sovereign, eternal God is constantly upholding the entire universe by His power (Hebrews 1:3), the Christian expects that no contradiction could possibly happen anywhere in the universe at any time. The universal, unchanging law of non-contradiction stems from God’s self-consistent nature.
But, apart from the Bible, how could we know that contradictions are always false? We could only say that they have been false in our experience. But our experiences are very limited, and no one has experienced the future. So, if someone claimed that he or she has finally discovered a true contradiction, the non-Christian has no basis for dismissing such a claim. Only in a biblical worldview can we know that contradictions are always false; only the Christian has a basis for the law of non-contradiction.
Basically our friend has put forth the claim that only by believing in an ancient Palestinian sky deity can we deduce any facts about the universe. Our friend, who only a few paragraphs before was sternly warning us against assuming our conclusions, has just told us in effect that "The Bible is true because it says that God is the force that makes the universe make sense, and because God establishes the baseline for what does or does not make sense, anything in the Bible that appears not to make sense, for example a Biblical contradiction, actually proves that it does make sense because we have been able to judge that it doesn't make sense only by applying the baseline of sense-making provided by the existence of God."
I'm not sure you could ask for a better example of assuming one's own conclusions, plus it gets extra points for trying to hide it by stretch the (non)argument out for three paragraphs. I hate to call Poe's Law on every single piece of apologetics I come across, but the last couple of sections of that article come across like a Landover Baptist spoof. Now the article we've been looking at is apparently meant to be the first in a series of AiG discussions about Biblical contradictions, so it's with a certain morbid fascination that I look forward to seeing what kinds of grotesque logical contortions our friend is ready perform in subsequent entries.