Are there any contradictions in the Bible?

[Midnight Rain]

The Bible, IMO, contains reliable history, often proved or supported by archaeological discoveries. I believe it also repeatedly and reliably foretold future events. It does not contain, despite claims made against it, false notions and ideas common when it was written, and indeed, for many centuries after. Think of a book, completed almost 2,000 years past, that despite ceaseless attacks against it, both physical and intellectual, continues to be the worlds all-time best seller. Think of a book that has transformed people's lives for the better on virtually every nation on earth. I could go on but you get my drift.

You have an opinion that the bible is correct. I'm glad you said that. But what is your evidence of it? What is the archaeological evidence that anything in the bible actually happened? There was a HUGE and I mean immensely important archealogial find hosted by Jews to try and find proof of the ancient history of the Torah and they failed miserably. So I am very very very interested to see what archaeological evidence you have that the rest of the bible is correct.

I don't think the bible has made any predictions. I think that people have rationalized the thee or four times translated verses with hindsight of modern events and tacked on the connection.

I also argue that Christianity has not bettered the lives of people around the globe. It did not do any favors to the genocide of the native American races and cultures. I also don't think that it helped Europe as soon as it began to spread it was just a short time later that Europe fell into the dark ages and it wasn't until the Renaissance that secularism was back on the rise.

 

[Ouroboros]

Christians are told to be baptised in the name of the Father and in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy spirit.

This requires that one knows something deeper about them. We know the name of the holy spirit is 'holy spirit'.... but what does it mean to baptised into the 'name' of the holy spirit?

This is the same issue with the text you think is a contradiction. Knowing the meaning of a name is different to knowing the name itself.

Who are you? And by that question, i'm not asking you for your name but rather who are you. If you can answer that question it will help you understand what God is saying to Moses about his name.

I am a person, and I have a name, and there's a lot to me, agree.

But that's not what the text says. The text doesn't explain these things.

It is saying this: You didn't know me as Ouroboros before, but now you will know me as Ouroboros, even though you did know me as Ouroboros before.

On the surface, it is a contradiction. I don't deny there are explanations to why there is a contradiction in the text, but the "why" doesn't explain away that there is a contradiction in the text.

 

[Ouroboros]

Finally we agree on something. The name part, not the baptism part. However, that being said, we still have ''Lord'', meaning JHVH, even though it is used for both the 'father', and Jesus. Later the title was differentiated in most Bibles, but the title is the same. So we have possible mistranslations of meaning, in our Bibles, because of this 'separation' of lord meaning, according to 'belief', or some type of supposition.

So then the contradiction that we see in these parts of the Bible was caused by translation errors.

Still, the question is, are there contradictions in the Bible, and yes, this is one, even if it has an explanation.

My problem is when people argue that there are no contradictions, which is wrong. There are contradictions in the text. That's the reason why people try to find explanations to why they are there. A contradiction is what it is. It's a fact that they're there, even if there are reasons to be there. The text do have these contradictions, and denying that they even exist based on explanation to why they exist, is essentially missing the point. They are there. The reason can be multifold, but they're still there.

Imagine if we found some contradiction in the works of Shakespeare. It wouldn't take away from the quality of the work. It's still great. And we might even come up with reasons to why there is a contradiction, perhaps Shakespeare meant it to be that way, but even if we do, the contradiction is still there. We can't just deny its existence based on the explanation to why its there.

 

[rusra02]

You have an opinion that the bible is correct. I'm glad you said that. But what is your evidence of it? What is the archaeological evidence that anything in the bible actually happened? There was a HUGE and I mean immensely important archealogial find hosted by Jews to try and find proof of the ancient history of the Torah and they failed miserably. So I am very very very interested to see what archaeological evidence you have that the rest of the bible is correct.

I don't think the bible has made any predictions. I think that people have rationalized the thee or four times translated verses with hindsight of modern events and tacked on the connection.

I also argue that Christianity has not bettered the lives of people around the globe. It did not do any favors to the genocide of the native American races and cultures. I also don't think that it helped Europe as soon as it began to spread it was just a short time later that Europe fell into the dark ages and it wasn't until the Renaissance that secularism was back on the rise.

I appreciate your views. The ugly record of those who falsely claim to follow Jesus Christ has turned many people away from the Bible. I believe Jesus Christ never taught his followers to commit the heinous crimes done in his name. He repudiates these false "Christians" in no uncertain terms; for example, at Matthew 7:15-23.
As to a prophecy fulfilled, Isaiah 44:28 is but one example of many. Here Isaiah foretells the individual by name who would be instrumental in rebuilding Jerusalem.
BTW, this was long before this man was even born and long before Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians. The Bible contains hundreds of such prophecies, the fulfillment of which secular history often confirms.

 

[Desert Snake]

So then the contradiction that we see in these parts of the Bible was caused by translation errors.

Still, the question is, are there contradictions in the Bible, and yes, this is one, even if it has an explanation.

My problem is when people argue that there are no contradictions, which is wrong. There are contradictions in the text. That's the reason why people try to find explanations to why they are there. A contradiction is what it is. It's a fact that they're there, even if there are reasons to be there. The text do have these contradictions, and denying that they even exist based on explanation to why they exist, is essentially missing the point. They are there. The reason can be multifold, but they're still there.
An actual ''error'' to me would be referring to a town or place incorrectly, or getting names mixed up...real context errors in the original texts.

Imagine if we found some contradiction in the works of Shakespeare. It wouldn't take away from the quality of the work. It's still great. And we might even come up with reasons to why there is a contradiction, perhaps Shakespeare meant it to be that way, but even if we do, the contradiction is still there. We can't just deny its existence based on the explanation to why its there.

I think if not a contradiction, the translation problems are still there..yes. That was bound to happen, I reckon, because people always have an agenda/belief that determines the nature of a translation from one language to another. Even translations of say the Kalevala differ, do they not, or the tale of Beowulf. Comes with the territory.
An actual ''error'' to me, would be something like a contradiction in place names or peoples names, an actual error in the original text. Those...I have not found.

 

[Ouroboros]

I think if not a contradiction, the translation problems are still there..yes. That was bound to happen, I reckon, because people always have an agenda/belief that determines the nature of a translation from one language to another. Even translations of say the Kalevala differ, do they not, or the tale of Beowulf. Comes with the territory.
An actual ''error'' to me, would be something like a contradiction in place names or peoples names, an actual error in the original text. Those...I have not found.

Well, in this case that I presented, in both verses the source text we have is using the letters YHWH. So it's more really about the authors than the translators in this one. At least that's my impression from the quotes I gave. Perhaps there are multiple versions?

Here's one Hebrew text I found: " וַיִּקְרָא אַבְרָהָם שֵׁם-הַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא, יְהוָה יִרְאֶה, אֲשֶׁר יֵאָמֵר הַיּוֹם, בְּהַר יְהוָה יֵרָאֶה." Gen 22:14-Abraham naming the place "יְהוָה יִרְאֶה,", YHWH Yireh: Jehovah-jireh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The "יְהוָה" in there is this word: יהוה - Wiktionary

יהוה • (YHVH) m

1. The Tetragrammaton, one of the names of God.
2. The proper, personal name of the Jewish and Christian God.

 

[Desert Snake]

Well, in this case that I presented, in both verses the source text we have is using the letters YHWH. So it's more really about the authors than the translators in this one.

I think...Pegg may be right on this one, though. The actual title/name could have been known with the usage being presented in the later text as a ''new'' name. Where I agree with you, however, is that names like El Shaddai and others, have the same import as JHVH. JHVH is not an exclusive name for G-d, never has been. This idea was presented later as a means to configure an ambiguity to the 'God' title, because if we read the Greek text literally, Jesus is called a Deific title on more than one occasion. I'm not arguing for a belief in this instance, either, just stating the ''facts''. We have to keep in mind the very real possibility that the Greek text was copied from Aramaic and perhaps Hebrew, as well. This is not a ''fringe'' belief, imo, some very astute scholars present this possibility.
The importance of that is, titles like 'JHVH' might have been used in the NT. /the original writings.
That is my view, btw.

 

[Tumah]

Ok. So the translators got it wrong with the whole "but I did not reveal my name". That's kind of a big screw-up when several major translations all say this when it should read "but I did not become known" instead.

But even so, it jus doesn't make sense to me. If someone said to you today, "I'm God. Now you will know me as God, the concept of God, instead of the name of God. Before you only knew me as God, but from now on, you're going to know me as God instead." Would that make sense to you?

It doesn't make any sense to me.

It not such a difficult mistake to make. And the subtleties might have been lost on the translators since it didn't really effect their agenda.

You are mistranslating YHWH as "G-d". "EL" means G-d. YHWH is a name. In Hebrew, names have a meaning and Scriptures sometimes explains names that would otherwise not have a clear meaning, such as Moses. In this case, the verse is relating that the forefathers were not able to equate the meaning of this name with what the actually perceived. Just to put my cards on the table, Rashi explains that the name indicates that whatever G-d says can be relied on to occur. But the forefathers never saw in their lifetime, the blessings that G-d blessed them with become manifest. So they did not see for themselves the truthfulness of the meaning behind G-d's name. By the time Moses comes around though, Israel has already become a nation, so he does have such a perception.

 

[Ouroboros]

I think...Pegg may be right on this one, though. The actual title/name could have been known with the usage being presented in the later text as a ''new'' name. Where I agree with you, however, is that names like El Shaddai and others, have the same import as JHVH. JHVH is not an exclusive name for G-d, never has been. This idea was presented later as a means to configure an ambiguity to the 'God' title, because if we read the Greek text literally, Jesus is called a Deific title on more than one occasion. I'm not arguing for a belief in this instance, either, just stating the ''facts''. We have to keep in mind the very real possibility that the Greek text was copied from Aramaic and perhaps Hebrew, as well. This is not a ''fringe'' belief, imo, some very astute scholars present this possibility.
The importance of that is, titles like 'JHVH' might have been used in the NT. /the original writings.
That is my view, btw.

Sure. It's an explanation still to why the contradiction is there, but it is still two claims or statements in the Bible that are opposing each other. We can speculate and guess to the reasons, and I'm leaning more towards Outhouse's explanation, but textually, they still oppose each other.

 

[Ouroboros]

It not such a difficult mistake to make. And the subtleties might have been lost on the translators since it didn't really effect their agenda.

You are mistranslating YHWH as "G-d". "EL" means G-d. YHWH is a name. In Hebrew, names have a meaning and Scriptures sometimes explains names that would otherwise not have a clear meaning, such as Moses. In this case, the verse is relating that the forefathers were not able to equate the meaning of this name with what the actually perceived. Just to put my cards on the table, Rashi explains that the name indicates that whatever G-d says can be relied on to occur. But the forefathers never saw in their lifetime, the blessings that G-d blessed them with become manifest. So they did not see for themselves the truthfulness of the meaning behind G-d's name. By the time Moses comes around though, Israel has already become a nation, so he does have such a perception.

I'm not mistranslating anything. The Jewish text says YHWH. There's no translation to God in my words at all. He used the name YHWH to name the place. Simple as that.

The text says יהוה, it doesn't say G-d or El.

And God says to Moses that Abraham didn't know his name. He didn't say Abraham didn't understand the full context or meaning of his name, no, it says he didn't know his name.

I'm just reading what it says literally.

If you need to explain the contradiction, that means you admit the contradiction being there. You can't explain the why unless you know that there is one to explain.

 

[Desert Snake]

Sure. It's an explanation still to why the contradiction is there, but it is still two claims or statements in the Bible that are opposing each other. We can speculate and guess to the reasons, and I'm leaning more towards Outhouse's explanation, but textually, they still oppose each other.

I would prefer a very plain system of Deific title usage, with as little 'changing' of the words as possible. I will cede that these changes in word meaning could be viewed as a ''contradiction''...but really in the practical sense. If one studies the issue, the closest to original titles can be determined.
Christian traditional beliefs are imo very close if not exact to the original intent, wording, so at least that is consistent, as far as I can tell.

 

[Ouroboros]

I would prefer a very plain system of Deific title usage, with as little 'changing' of the words as possible. I will cede that these changes in word meaning could be viewed as a ''contradiction''...but really in the practical sense. If one studies the issue, the closest to original titles can be determined.

Sigh.

I can tell no one can see what I'm saying here, and I think I've explained myself extensively enough that there's nothing more to say without repeating once more, so I'm leaving this discussion. Perhaps I'll revisit it some day again, but for now, I stand where I stand on this issue.

 

[Etritonakin]

May I ask why? I agree that color is absolutely unique and no one's 'blue' is another's but if we accept contradiction at face value and do not challenge it, what then? We become 'sheeple'? What, for you, is this 'something other' we are to do with these contradictions?

Ask more questions. Make sure they are actually contradictions. Many misunderstandings are resolved with further investigation in any situation.

For example.... Christ said that the thief on the cross would be with him that day in paradise -yet the bible record indicates that Christ did not even ascend to heaven that day.

Contradiction? No.

For the above to not be a contradiction, Christ would have to be with the thief that day with him in paradise, and also stay on earth that day. Correct? How could this be possible?

First -Christ did not say he would be with the thief that day in paradise -but that the thief would be with him in paradise that day.

Second -the word used is paradise -not heaven.

So -let's examine what happened to both -according to what is written in the bible.

The thief died. Then what? His body returned to dust and his spirit to God. (Ecc 12:7)
While dead, the thief knows not the passage of time -or anything else -is essentially asleep, and is still asleep to this day.
He will be resurrected when Christ returns in glory -and, just as when we sleep, he will not have experienced the passage of time between falling asleep and waking.
He closed his eyes and will open them in the future -and, to him, it will be the very same day. (Ecc 9:5, John 11:11-14, ITh 4:14-16).
He will not be resurrected to heaven, but to the paradise that will be created on earth after Christ returns (though his sleeping spirit will likely be put within an immortal body at that time -Php 3:21).
Mat_5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Joh 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
(also Isa 11 and 65)

What happened to Christ? He died -appeared to many on earth -eventually ascended -sat down at the right hand of God until his time to rule
-doing many things between his death and eventual rule to prepare for it -Heb 8:1, 10:12-14, Joh 14:18-19, Mat 26:64, Zec 14, Mic 4)

So -just as one who stays awake experiences time and the sleeping do not, Christ continued on earth -then ascended to heaven -and will eventually resurrect the thief.

 

[Tumah]

I'm not mistranslating anything. The Jewish text says YHWH. There's no translation to God in my words at all. He used the name YHWH to name the place. Simple as that.

The text says יהוה, it doesn't say G-d or El.

And God says to Moses that Abraham didn't know his name. He didn't say Abraham didn't understand the full context or meaning of his name, no, it says he didn't know his name.

I'm just reading what it says literally.

If you need to explain the contradiction, that means you admit the contradiction being there. You can't explain the why unless you know that there is one to explain.

The mistranslation I was referring to was when you said, "If someone said to you today, 'I'm G-d, now you will know me as G-d.'" I was saying that that is not what was said here because YHWH doesn't mean G-d.

You are not reading what it says literally. I've already explained that. It doesn't say, "And G-d says to Moses that Abraham didn't know his name." It says, "And [as] my name YHWH, I did not become known to them."

I freely admit that there are contradictions in Scriptures. Virtually the entire Talmud is predicated on the existence of such inconsistencies. The difference is that we believe they are there purposely because by solving the problem, one will also take away new information about the subject. The point being, that contradictions are not disproof of Divine authorship. If anything, I've found it more confirming than anything. The point of Scriptures is not to teach history. That's why Josephs didn't make it into the cannon. The point is to convey a large volume of information in the shortest possible way. These inconsistencies are one of the tools for that task.

 

[Ouroboros]

The mistranslation I was referring to was when you said, "If someone said to you today, 'I'm G-d, now you will know me as G-d.'" I was saying that that is not what was said here because YHWH doesn't mean G-d.

You are not reading what it says literally. I've already explained that. It doesn't say, "And G-d says to Moses that Abraham didn't know his name." It says, "And [as] my name YHWH, I did not become known to them."

So in Gen 15:17 "Then he [God] said to him [Abraham], “I am the LORD [=Yahweh] who brought you from Ur of the Chaldeans" doesn't mean the same YHWH or is that something the authors added?

I freely admit that there are contradictions in Scriptures. Virtually the entire Talmud is predicated on the existence of such inconsistencies.

Thank you. I think that's the important part here. We should be able to admit that there are contradictions in the scripture, but it doesn't take away from the understanding. What upsets me is when people defend the contradictions with saying "It's not a contradiction!" when it is.

Take the trinity in Christianity. 1+1+1=1 is mathematically false. Still, the idea of the trinity is that it is a mystery. If someone says, "it's not mathematically false, it is mathematically true that 1+1+1=1! So now we're going to teach our kids this new math." Then we think they're crazy. The same goes here. There are contradictions, on purpose or by mistake, it doesn't matter. We should call them for what they are, regardless of the reasons for them being there. The explanations are great, but denying the nature of the text just because it bothers someone's faith, shows an unhealthy relationship to the scripture.

The difference is that we believe they are there purposely because by solving the problem, one will also take away new information about the subject. The point being, that contradictions are not disproof of Divine authorship.

Never even mentioned anything about that.

My point is, that we call an apple an apple when we see an apple. We don't call it an orange because we don't like apples.

If anything, I've found it more confirming than anything. The point of Scriptures is not to teach history. That's why Josephs didn't make it into the cannon. The point is to convey a large volume of information in the shortest possible way. These inconsistencies are one of the tools for that task.

Well, that's good for you. I'm glad that you agree to my point that there are contradictions (and in my opinion this is one of them), but I never said that it invalidated or devalued the scripture itself. The problem is rather when someone defends it by claiming that they're not contradictions based on the explanations, which isn't a healthy view.

Take some grammatical errors in the Bible as an example. Some claim that these grammar errors are there on purpose, so therefore there are no grammar errors! That's complete BS. They're still grammatical errors even if they were intentional or not.

Or put it this way, the contradiction I brought up. If the response had from the beginning been (instead of a knee-jerk reaction) that "yes, it's a contradiction, and it's there on purpose to make us think about different nature of God's character and that..." it would have been more accurate. Admit that it is a contradiction, then explain why it is one, but never say that it isn't because of the explanation. That only creates denial in the believer and rejection by the others.

Oh, another point. As you can see to the left, Coincidentia Oppositorum. I believe in the unity of opposites and contradictions. They don't bother me, but I don't deny their existence, but rather embrace them.

 

[Tumah]

My point is, that we call an apple an apple when we see an apple. We don't call it an orange because we don't like apples.


Well, that's good for you. I'm glad that you agree to my point that there are contradictions (and in my opinion this is one of them), but I never said that it invalidated or devalued the scripture itself. The problem is rather when someone defends it by claiming that they're not contradictions based on the explanations, which isn't a healthy view.

Take some grammatical errors in the Bible as an example. Some claim that these grammar errors are there on purpose, so therefore there are no grammar errors! That's complete BS. They're still grammatical errors even if they were intentional or not.

Or put it this way, the contradiction I brought up. If the response had from the beginning been (instead of a knee-jerk reaction) that "yes, it's a contradiction, and it's there on purpose to make us think about different nature of God's character and that..." it would have been more accurate. Admit that it is a contradiction, then explain why it is one, but never say that it isn't because of the explanation. That only creates denial in the believer and rejection by the others.

Oh, another point. As you can see to the left, Coincidentia Oppositorum. I believe in the unity of opposites and contradictions. They don't bother me, but I don't deny their existence, but rather embrace them.

My mistake then. Generally, when someone is pointing out the existence of contradictions, they are using it as a means to disprove the Divine authorship of Scriptures. So I naturally assumed that was the point you were getting at here.

But I would also add, that I am only talking about superficial contradictions. Meaning, if I told you today that light was a wave and tomorrow that it is a particle, you would say that I am contradicting myself. But learning about the behavior of light will teach that light has both attributes and there is no contradiction. Superficially, the two statements are at odds with each other, but in reality they are not.

I'm only pointing this out, because I don't want someone to come back to me later and tell me that I believe Scriptures contains false information (even if for a good purpose).

When it comes to grammatical errors, there's really no way to deny that. The first word in Genesis is not grammatically correct in relation to the rest of the verse. So how's that for starting off on the wrong foot.

 

[outhouse]

they are using it as a means to disprove the Divine authorship of Scriptures.

Bit of a problem you possess. No one is really trying to disprove it.


It has no been proven yet , to even begin to disprove.


To date you have a bunch of ancient men who wrote and lived mythology that escapes through their theology. No divine connection has ever been established. Only perceived.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm not mistranslating anything. The Jewish text says YHWH. There's no translation to God in my words at all. He used the name YHWH to name the place. ...

Sigh.

I can tell no one can see what I'm saying here, ...

I can see what you are saying, and you are correct.

 

[Tumah]

Bit of a problem you possess. No one is really trying to disprove it.


It has no been proven yet , to even begin to disprove.


To date you have a bunch of ancient men who wrote and lived mythology that escapes through their theology. No divine connection has ever been established. Only perceived.

Thank you for taking the time to comment.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Thank you for taking the time to comment.

You're welcome. I know you'd do the same for me.