Do I understand you correctly that you do NOT hold to any Paradoxes in scripture?
Here's a place where definitions of terms should be introduced, and actual possible cases of paradox proposed. No one should agree, in principle, that they consent to either contradiction in fact or in appearance, until something is put on the table. Hypothetically speaking, if every proposed case of apparent contradiction was resolved in a legitimate manner, the situation would end with zero paradox or contradiction. Alternatively, a proposed paradox might be resolved
as far as my own satisfaction, while I might agree that someone else faced a paradoxical (to him) situation. So, in that sense the Bible would contain a paradox.
I do not consent to the opening stipulation as common-ground for discussion that Scripture undoubtedly contains paradoxes of all description; but some paradox of some description could be identified there.
I don't think this is a characterization from unbelievers. Many believers will say this to unbelievers.
I think I clearly indicated in my original reply that many Christians DO regard Scripture-content in a manner
common with unbelievers. That is, to say, they begin by
agreeing that the Bible IS contradictory (apparently), or at least CONTAINS significant paradox. They concede this immediately; they don't even start by contending with the first-premise of the unbeliever. And they may do this subtly, that is for the sake of argument (not deceitfully); or they may, consciously or not, actually believe this is the case. And so yes, believers say this very thing to unbelievers.
I don't consider that stance to be "faith in Scripture" of a robust sort, but merely a "so far as it goes" sort. The phrase: "seeming contradictory truths [under consideration are] truthful [in] nature due to faith," appears to grant the Bible contains both phenomena: 1) A, and 2) non-A; and that
faith (whatever its definition) is that which contains both, or reconciles both in a religious (noumenal) realm separate from history, substance, and logic. The following sentence that says a particular kind of "faith... defin[es] the paradoxes in the Bible," certainly offers support to that reading.
I think identified challenges to biblical consistency are properly met by rigorous investigation using tools of historians, forensic science, and logic. I do not retreat to "faith," though I agree with Augustin, "I believe, therefore I understand." Faith is prior. My faith undergirds both my basic regard of the Bible as divine revelation, and my confidence in the tools of natural investigation. I think most unbelief "cheats" on its use of said tools, and unbelievers are the ones who should be "retreating to faith." I don't think there is any substance to the claim that the tools and knowledge of the modern age has proven the folly and futility of Christian-religious claims about the "real world."
Is the understanding of where someone is coming from, the same as saying his argument is valid? If I listen to a modernist skeptic talking about Scripture, I don't have to agree with him to understand his viewpoint, do I? (Not a rhetorical question).
I am not saying that we should fail to understand where an unbeliever (or anyone else) is coming from. I'm saying we need to formulate our own Christian position in such a way that we clearly stand at odds with both the Kantian dialectic, and the postmodern flight to radical skepticism and subjectivism.
So. my problem with the expression of the OP (taken as a whole and as it is, not as wholly mistaken) is not that it affirms that faith (properly defined) is prior to understanding (ala Augustin), for well it does; or that it does not understand and challenge unbelief at all. But, that it is not clear that it understands where an uncompromising Christian position begins.
Perhaps this post has offered some clarity.