Are there any contradictions in the Bible?

[outhouse]

I got interested in how one seemingly insignificant Jew started a world wide religion when he did NOT intend
to do so.

Im curious what you found. How do you see one man starting the religion? in a paragraph or two.

 

[outhouse]

N.W.T. is probably about as correct a translation as one can get.

Translations matters in some details a great deal. The problem is the lost context of so much of the writing is lost in its Koine form, by the time its gets translated, the real meaning becomes much harder to find.

For me, I see the stories as important text that mirrors the compilers of these traditions more so then it does reflect the actual man who walked the earth.

It definitely gives little detail about how this movement started and evolved, other then a glimpse of what some other culture describes 30- 100 years later being far removed from all the events that actually took place.

This is where education is so important in opening up the past.

 

[Skwim]

Because I'm special and gawd told me which one was authored by him.

And you're waiting for what, an autographed copy?

 

[Skwim]

I mean who wants to be a J.W.??????? No Christmas, no Easter, no b-days, no voting, no shooting
anyone........huh?......and so on.

Plus the credibility issues with all the failed prophecies (predictions) and serious tap dancing that's been going on within the religion. Can't forget those.

 

[jeager106]

Plus the credibility issues with all the failed prophecies (predictions) and serious tap dancing that's been going on within the religion. Can't forget those.

Oh, I agree about that. I well remember a small book that was presented to the public entitled simply "1975" and was
supposed to be "the" year to remember. End of days and such.
I wish I still had my copy.
I have found NO organized Christain religion that was even close to perfect.
I doubt any others are either.
I struggle but somehow love God and the promise of a better world.
If I am wrong then what is the harm in believing and loving others as I would be loved?

 

[Skwim]

If I am wrong then what is the harm in believing and loving others as I would be loved?

Do you really need a religion to tell you there's no harm, and that loving others is a good thing? Seems you already have that understanding.

 

[jeager106]

Do you really need a religion to tell you there's no harm, and that loving others is a good thing? Seems you already have that understanding.

Yes I already do have that understanding. Religion, Christianity, give me much more than that.

 

[kepha31]

Translations matters in some details a great deal. The problem is the lost context of so much of the writing is lost in its Koine form, by the time its gets translated, the real meaning becomes much harder to find.

St. Jerome was a linguistic genius, bent on accurately translating from ancient manuscripts we don't have. He translated most of the Old Testament from the Hebrew with the aid a rabbi. He translated the existing Koine NT, as he was fluent in that language as well. Lost context of the original Greek between 50-95 AD and 400 AD is speculation and exaggerations should be avoided. The Duay Reims Bible is a derivative of Jerome's Latin Vulgate.

For me, I see the stories as important text that mirrors the compilers of these traditions more so then it does reflect the actual man who walked the earth.

That would depend on where the compilers got their traditions in the first place, and what traditions you are talking about. All the traditions I have in mind that survived 2000 years most definitely reflect the Man who walked the earth. You just have to see beyond the externals.

It definitely gives little detail about how this movement started and evolved, other then a glimpse of what some other culture describes 30- 100 years later being far removed from all the events that actually took place.

It was no movement, but a fulfillment of what had already been there for a very long time. And it wasn't "another culture", it was the same one. How much can an ancient culture change in 100 years? Not much. Far removed? Horse muffins. That's like saying we can only have a glimpse by reading a newspaper 100 years old because we are "far removed".

Newspapers from March, 1915

 

[truthofscripture]

why then, are there so many different and varying versions of the same book? Why so many denominations of the same faith? Why the schism between the RCC and Martin Luther that created Protestantism? Or Jehovah witnesses? Or later day saints or Mormons? Etc. please explain.

Ten different reporters may report on a single incident. They will ALL include differing facts, and will all contradict eachother. The basic facts of the incident remain. It's the personality and personal experiences of the reporter that causes seeming contradictions. The same holds true with the scriptures. They don't contradict eachother, but are told by people with differing personalities and personal experiences. Careful study will show there are absolutely no contradictions in the scriptures, if you are studying an accurate translation. Most translations are deliberately incorrect though. Constantine caused the greatest falsehoods, King James and his parliament caused many others. Then still others mistranslated scriptures because of their own personal religious tilt. It's important to find a translation that is as close to the original texts as possible. Wouldn't any thoughtful and intelligent person want to know exactly what God has to say to us?

 

[truthofscripture]

Yes I already do have that understanding. Religion, Christianity, give me much more than that.

Remember what Galations 5:19-21 and Revelation to John say about sects and religions in general. They are condemned in the scriptures as being false, works of the flesh, and Babylon the Great. If you want accurate information, steer far away from religions, and head straight to an accurate translation of the scriptures.

 

[JoStories]

Ten different reporters may report on a single incident. They will ALL include differing facts, and will all contradict eachother. The basic facts of the incident remain. It's the personality and personal experiences of the reporter that causes seeming contradictions. The same holds true with the scriptures. They don't contradict eachother, but are told by people with differing personalities and personal experiences. Careful study will show there are absolutely no contradictions in the scriptures, if you are studying an accurate translation. Most translations are deliberately incorrect though. Constantine caused the greatest falsehoods, King James and his parliament caused many others. Then still others mistranslated scriptures because of their own personal religious tilt. It's important to find a translation that is as close to the original texts as possible. Wouldn't any thoughtful and intelligent person want to know exactly what God has to say to us?

If that is the case, then that precludes and/or negates that the bible, speaking here only of the Christian bible, cannot have been written by God. It was written by men. And just as two reporters may report situations differently, so too, would have these people. What you then have is the difference between the ny times and national enquirer. One have credibility and the other is nothing more than trash. In short, you cannot have this two ways. Either it is the word of God, or its not.

 

[truthofscripture]

If that is the case, then that precludes and/or negates that the bible, speaking here only of the Christian bible, cannot have been written by God. It was written by men. And just as two reporters may report situations differently, so too, would have these people. What you then have is the difference between the ny times and national enquirer. One have credibility and the other is nothing more than trash. In short, you cannot have this two ways. Either it is the word of God, or its not.

I assume your double negative was not intended. Based on that, then no, it doesn't mean that the scriptures aren't authored by Jehovah God. Each of the 60 plus writers of the scriptures were not taking dictation, they were told what to say, not how to say it. Each writer has his/her own personality and experiences, but they did say what Jehovah wanted said. Ten people can tell the same story ten different ways, and it's still the same story. Take Luke. He was a physician, and spoke as a physician. Matthew was a tax collector, and wrote as a tax collector would write. Nowhere in the inspired word of God does it say that he inspired, using holy spirit, anyone to write word for word what God wanted written down. So none of the scriptures were written by God, but He did AUTHOR each scripture.

 

[Muffled]

I believe, Yes, when Jesus says that He is going to be killed Peter says this shall never be.

 

[JoStories]

I assume your double negative was not intended. Based on that, then no, it doesn't mean that the scriptures aren't authored by Jehovah God. Each of the 60 plus writers of the scriptures were not taking dictation, they were told what to say, not how to say it. Each writer has his/her own personality and experiences, but they did say what Jehovah wanted said. Ten people can tell the same story ten different ways, and it's still the same story. Take Luke. He was a physician, and spoke as a physician. Matthew was a tax collector, and wrote as a tax collector would write. Nowhere in the inspired word of God does it say that he inspired, using holy spirit, anyone to write word for word what God wanted written down. So none of the scriptures were written by God, but He did AUTHOR each scripture.

If that were the case, even with different voices, there would be no contradictions and yet, there are. You speak of luke as though he were an historical person with evidence to back it. Do you have that proof or is this supposition? I notice you do not mention mark, and that is the one book not only with a disputed ending but with the concensus that several people wrote it. How does your faith explain the differing endings to that particular book? How does your faith explain that no Jewish people who have not renounced their faith believe that Christ was the messiah? He doesn't fulfill the requirements set forth in the Tanakh, or Talmud. This is one point that had always fascinated me. The line of the messiah must come through paternal roots and Jesus doesn't live up,to that. How do you view this?

 

[truthofscripture]

I believe, Yes, when Jesus says that He is going to be killed Peter says this shall never be.

Don't be silly. Peter was showing shock and dismay, not stating fact. I'm sure every utterance by you of shock and dismay isn't true also. Let's say someone has just told you they have 6 months to live, you would most likely say something like "no, that can't be". Does that make it the truth just because you said it? Certainly not.

 

[JoStories]

Translations matters in some details a great deal. The problem is the lost context of so much of the writing is lost in its Koine form, by the time its gets translated, the real meaning becomes much harder to find.

For me, I see the stories as important text that mirrors the compilers of these traditions more so then it does reflect the actual man who walked the earth.

It definitely gives little detail about how this movement started and evolved, other then a glimpse of what some other culture describes 30- 100 years later being far removed from all the events that actually took place.

This is where education is so important in opening up the past.

So true. I have had to learn Greek, Latin and a smattering of Hebrew, Yiddish and some older languages to try to compare he various texts. And even then, I draw heavily on graduate level ancient history, particular the Greco-roman and Egyptian influences. Without those, one cannot even attempt to translate or interpret in a scholarly fashion.

 

[outhouse]

All the traditions I have in mind that survived 2000 years most definitely reflect the Man who walked the earth. You just have to see beyond the externals.

You follow for the most part a literal translation on the NT blindly accepting traditions without any credible historical study on each book.

You do understand your following more of Johns teachings then that of Jesus?

 

[outhouse]

Take Luke. He was a physician, and spoke as a physician. Matthew was a tax collector, and wrote as a tax collector would write.

These authors were attributed later by people far removed from the Galileans life. The authors of these two books today remain unknown.

If they were who they are stated to be, they would not have had to copy the text known as mark.

So none of the scriptures were written by God, but He did AUTHOR each scripture.

Unsubstantiated rhetoric.

Its fine to have faith as such. But there is no credible history behind such a statement. WE only see mans hand on all the text.

 

[truthofscripture]

These authors were attributed later by people far removed from the Galileans life. The authors of these two books today remain unknown.

If they were who they are stated to be, they would not have had to copy the text known as mark.



Unsubstantiated rhetoric.

Its fine to have faith as such. But there is no credible history behind such a statement. WE only see mans hand on all the text.

You believe whatever you want. What you've stated here isn't factual. I prefer the truth myself. I've done my research. Decades of it. And you?

 

[outhouse]

What you've stated here isn't factual.

No but it is followed by most credible historians, and taught in the best universities.

Why did the text attributed to Matthew and Luke have to copy the text attributed to Mark????

. I prefer the truth myself

No you don't.

You refuse credible education due to your theistic blinders limiting what you will accept.

Gospel of Luke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The author is not named in either volume


"a critical consensus emphasizes the countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters."


Gospel of Matthew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous


The consensus is that Papias does not describe the Gospel of Matthew as we know it, and it is generally accepted that Matthew was written in Greek, not Aramaic or Hebrew