Are there any contradictions in the Bible?

[Rick O'Shez]

The biggest contradiction I see is the New Testament compared to the Old Testament. It's like two completely different religions.

 

[truthofscripture]

All of the Bible's contradictions have been recorded in this interactive map

Believing there are contradictions in God's inspired word, is to admit that one has not studied them properly, or is using false translations such as King James, or has no holy spirit help from God in understanding them. There are, using ACCURATE translations, absolutely no contradictions. The penmen may have viewed a particular event slightly differently, rounded off numbers, or interviewed witnesses to an event and gotten different information, but no contradictions actually exist. When God searches our hearts, as He does constantly, He looks for those with an honest heart and an honest desire to draw close to Him. Upon seeing such a heart, He uses His holy spirit to pierce the veil that is placed over our understanding by Satan. If that veil is left in place, then no clear understanding is even remotely possible with regards most of the scriptures. Every book meshes perfectly and harmonizes with every other book completely. If you see contradictions, then don't feel bad, as 99.9% of all people do not have the heart that God searches for and have no chance of clearly understanding the scriptures. One can argue all one wants, but it cannot be changed in any other way. No amount of arguing, complaining, disparaging, raging, or attempting to explain things in any other way is going to help.

 

[truthofscripture]

The biggest contradiction I see is the New Testament compared to the Old Testament. It's like two completely different religions.

Neither book has anything to do with any religion. The law covenant isn't a religion, nor is Christianity, the "one true faith" that Jesus brought to Earth. In fact, they both speak of religions being false.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Neither book has anything to do with any religion.

I agree.

 

[truthofscripture]

I agree.

Still wish I had sharks with lasers on their heads.

 

[Mycroft]

Believing there are contradictions in God's inspired word, is to admit that one has not studied them properly,

I sense the goalpost just moved. I'm out.

 

[JoStories]

Believing there are contradictions in God's inspired word, is to admit that one has not studied them properly, or is using false translations such as King James, or has no holy spirit help from God in understanding them. There are, using ACCURATE translations, absolutely no contradictions. The penmen may have viewed a particular event slightly differently, rounded off numbers, or interviewed witnesses to an event and gotten different information, but no contradictions actually exist. When God searches our hearts, as He does constantly, He looks for those with an honest heart and an honest desire to draw close to Him. Upon seeing such a heart, He uses His holy spirit to pierce the veil that is placed over our understanding by Satan. If that veil is left in place, then no clear understanding is even remotely possible with regards most of the scriptures. Every book meshes perfectly and harmonizes with every other book completely. If you see contradictions, then don't feel bad, as 99.9% of all people do not have the heart that God searches for and have no chance of clearly understanding the scriptures. One can argue all one wants, but it cannot be changed in any other way. No amount of arguing, complaining, disparaging, raging, or attempting to explain things in any other way is going to help.

this is patently false as I have studied the Bible in a scholarly fashion for years now. Ther are clear contradictions even in the orignal Bible and more so in the more recent translations. You go on about knowing God and having this God make things clear in our hearts but that kind of view is from the Christian POV only. What of other faiths who view God differently? Are they all wrong because several predate your views. IMO, your view is distinctly biased and I would hold it as an example of being immersed in that faith to the point of not being able to see any other view clearly.

 

[truthofscripture]

this is patently false as I have studied the Bible in a scholarly fashion for years now. Ther are clear contradictions even in the orignal Bible and more so in the more recent translations. You go on about knowing God and having this God make things clear in our hearts but that kind of view is from the Christian POV only. What of other faiths who view God differently? Are they all wrong because several predate your views. IMO, your view is distinctly biased and I would hold it as an example of being immersed in that faith to the point of not being able to see any other view clearly.

Believe what you will, but do not tell me what I have posted is false, as it is most certainly not false. You disagree, but don't pretend to be the be all and end all of scriptural study. How many of the annointed do you keep in contact with and who help you understand?

 

[JoStories]

Jayjaydee wrote: We really don't know what Jesus did or did not know. We only know what the gospel authors said he knew.
Yes we do.....we have the first hand accounts in the scriptures......are we to take your word over theirs?

1 Corinthians 2:16..."For who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to advise him? But we have the mind of Christ."

We do not have first hand accounts. All of the gospels were written beyond the life spans of those peoples involved, even if we accept they existed at all. We have NO first hand accounts. We have anecdotal stories and as we all know, those kind of stories change from one teller to the next.

 

[truthofscripture]

Jayjaydee wrote: We really don't know what Jesus did or did not know. We only know what the gospel authors said he knew.
Yes we do.....we have the first hand accounts in the scriptures......are we to take your word over theirs?

1 Corinthians 2:16..."For who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to advise him? But we have the mind of Christ."

We do not have first hand accounts. All of the gospels were written beyond the life spans of those peoples involved, even if we accept they existed at all. We have NO first hand accounts. We have anecdotal stories and as we all know, those kind of stories change from one teller to the next.

In your opinion.

 

[JoStories]

Believe what you will, but do not tell me what I have posted is false, as it is most certainly not false. You disagree, but don't pretend to be the be all and end all of scriptural study. How many of the annointed do you keep in contact with and who help you understand?

1. I never claimed to be the only position as it relates to scholarly study of the Bible but my POV is held by many other scholars who study the Bible as well.
2. Your last sentence is ridiculous on its face. Have you read the Bible in its original languages? Can you read Koine Greek or Hebrew?
3. There are contradictions whether you want to admit that or not. How else does one explain the added parts of Mark, which come with a disclaimer? What of the debate of reincarnation in the Bible? How do you explain those?

 

[truthofscripture]

1. I never claimed to be the only position as it relates to scholarly study of the Bible but my POV is held by many other scholars who study the Bible as well.
2. Your last sentence is ridiculous on its face. Have you read the Bible in its original languages? Can you read Koine Greek or Hebrew?
3. There are contradictions whether you want to admit that or not. How else does one explain the added parts of Mark, which come with a disclaimer? What of the debate of reincarnation in the Bible? How do you explain those?

False religion is how I explain those. Political and religious changes to the scriptures as well explain many of those issues. My credentials are not in question here. It is you who made a blanket statement that "that is false". Not me.

 

[JoStories]

In your opinion.

No, sorry. Its fact. Note the following regarding the dates of when the gospels were written:

• Mark: c. 68–73,[32] c. 65–70.[33]
• Matthew: c. 70–100,[32] c. 80–85.[33]
• Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[32] c. 80–85.[33]
• John: c. 90–100,[33] c. 90–110,[34] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

Now, given that we assume that the men surrounding Jesus were adults when they allegedly knew them, with the exception of Mark, they would have been over 100 years of age. The average life span then was 30 years. This is from a scholars article about life span over the ages:

"Over the centuries average life expectancy has increased from about age 20 in ancient Rome some 2,000 years ago (death in childhood and youth were common there owing to the lack of sanitation and medical know-how) to about age 40 at the time that the pilgrims came to America. Between the time of the pilgrims and 1900" Hampton and Russel, MDs 2006

Clearly, none of those men would have been alive when the books were written.

 

[truthofscripture]

No, sorry. Its fact. Note the following regarding the dates of when the gospels were written:

• 
  
  
  • Mark: c. 68–73,[32] c. 65–70.[33]
  • Matthew: c. 70–100,[32] c. 80–85.[33]
  • Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[32] c. 80–85.[33]
  • John: c. 90–100,[33] c. 90–110,[34] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

Now, given that we assume that the men surrounding Jesus were adults when they allegedly knew them, with the exception of Mark, they would have been over 100 years of age. The average life span then was 30 years. This is from a scholars article about life span over the ages:

"Over the centuries average life expectancy has increased from about age 20 in ancient Rome some 2,000 years ago (death in childhood and youth were common there owing to the lack of sanitation and medical know-how) to about age 40 at the time that the pilgrims came to America. Between the time of the pilgrims and 1900" Hampton and Russel, MDs 2006

Clearly, none of those men would have been alive when the books were written.

The book of Mark was written c. 60-65 c.e. Matthew was completed by 41 c.e. Luke written 56-58 c.e. John completed by 98 c.e.

 

[JoStories]

The book of Mark was written c. 60-65 c.e. Matthew was completed by 41 c.e. Luke written 56-58 c.e. John completed by 98 c.e.

And? Those are differing dates to this entire concept. Fact is, no one can really pin point it with any degree of accuracy beyond dating the paper, the languages to the time frame and the writing. Furthermore, if the average life span was 30 years, all of those books would have been written beyond the life span of those men. And that is if we agree the books were actually written by those men, which many contend is not the case. The exception is Matthew but even that is contended.
Consider the following reference, which is from a scholars work as well:

"The gospels (and Acts) are anonymous, in that none of them name an author.[70] Whilst the Gospel of John might be considered somewhat of an exception, because the author refers to himself as "the disciple Jesus loved" and claims to be a member of Jesus' inner circle,[71] most scholars today consider this passage to be an interpolation (see below).

There is general agreement among scholars that the Synoptic Gospels (Mathew, Mark and Luke) how a high level of cross-reference. The usual explanation, the Two source hypothesis, is that Mark was written first and that the authors of Matthew and Luke relied on Mark and the hypothetical Q document. Scholars agree that the Gospel of John was written last, using a different tradition and body of testimony. In addition, most scholars agree that the author of Luke also wrote the Acts of the Apostles, making Luke and Acts two halves of a single work

 

[truthofscripture]

And? Those are differing dates to this entire concept. Fact is, no one can really pin point it with any degree of accuracy beyond dating the paper, the languages to the time frame and the writing. Furthermore, if the average life span was 30 years, all of those books would have been written beyond the life span of those men. And that is if we agree the books were actually written by those men, which many contend is not the case. The exception is Matthew but even that is contended.
Consider the following reference, which is from a scholars work as well:

"The gospels (and Acts) are anonymous, in that none of them name an author.[70] Whilst the Gospel of John might be considered somewhat of an exception, because the author refers to himself as "the disciple Jesus loved" and claims to be a member of Jesus' inner circle,[71] most scholars today consider this passage to be an interpolation (see below).

There is general agreement among scholars that the Synoptic Gospels (Mathew, Mark and Luke) how a high level of cross-reference. The usual explanation, the Two source hypothesis, is that Mark was written first and that the authors of Matthew and Luke relied on Mark and the hypothetical Q document. Scholars agree that the Gospel of John was written last, using a different tradition and body of testimony. In addition, most scholars agree that the author of Luke also wrote the Acts of the Apostles, making Luke and Acts two halves of a single work

In your opinion.

 

[JoStories]

In your opinion.

No, in the opinion of many scholars but it is clear to me that you are not interested in debate as you have blinders on. I believe there is no more point in discussing this.

 

[truthofscripture]

No, in the opinion of many scholars but it is clear to me that you are not interested in debate as you have blinders on. I believe there is no more point in discussing this.

Debate involves facts, not the opinions of "scholars". I'm not interested in their opinions. what you've posted in such a large font is YOUR opinions. I am not interested in your opinions either.

 

[sojourner]

Yes I can see what your saying, but I still feel that the bible has so many ways of seeing what it contains, because of the way it was all put together, just a load odd books shoved here and there, so we end up with so many denominations shoved here and there all over the world, and many are arrogant enough to believe they themselves have the truth, or know how it should be read.

Yup. The bible does have many ways of being interpreted, and it is that polyvalence that has been instrumental in the diversity of denominations. There's nothing wrong with diversity, but there's everything wrong with claiming exclusivity in that phalanx of diversity.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Debate involves facts, not the opinions of "scholars".

The problem is that when interpreting ancient religious texts it all comes down to opinion, scholarly or otherwise. There aren't really any "facts" to consider.