Are there any contradictions in the Bible?

[Ouroboros]

I would agree and add that this POV could be meant to include other religious books. For example, the POV from the Vedas, the Tanakh, which is different from the OT, the Teachings of the Buddha, etc. Why does God have to be consigned to one POV from only one faith? It is my opinion that God is bigger than that.

Exactly. Any text that contains thoughts and wonderings about God is a religious text, and will have good and bad thing in it. Just like our posts here. I'm not always right, but I'm right most of the time... Anyway, we all are representatives of the divine, so any thought we have of God is an aspect.

 

[Kenny]

I agree that it is possible there are no contradictions in the Bible. But I have examined all the possible explanations that apologists have offered, and having done so, I think it is extremely improbable that the Bible has no contradictions.

I mentioned that there were some. Mostly numerical. Additional areas have of contradiction have no real impact.

Remembering that these are copies of copies, there are human errors within the texts. However, with the thousands of documents in multiple languages available, it is easy to locate errors and thus the what people call "contradictions".

 

[outhouse]

it is easy to locate errors and thus the what people call "contradictions".

Severe denial.

The many contradictions are there because it was of no concern to the people who created the canon, as they understood the context lost by many modern men.

 

[Kenny]

First, let me say how refreshing it is to have a civil conversation with someone even when we disagree. I am new here but I have also seen many posters who simply wish to either insult or proselytize and that, IMO, is not the purpose of a place like this.
Now, that said, we agree here. However, this point leads to another, more interesting point, IMO. That is that Mary cannot possibly lead to a messiah per Jewish lore. You yourself point out that the woman is devalued in that culture, which I agree with. I don't, however, feel that it is recognizing Joseph as the head of the family.

Thank you Jo,

Obviously we have come to our own conclusions. My explanations are simply for information and understanding sake.

There is an additional quote that John Gill mentions that confirms that it was Mary's line. It is mentioned in a derogatory fashion, but none the less confirms who her father was:

``that saw, (yle tb Myrm) , "Mary the daughter of Eli" in the shades, hanging by the fibres of her breasts; and there are that say, the gate, or, as elsewhere F3, the bar of the gate of hell is fixed to her ear.''
F3 Ib. Chagiga, fol. 77. 4.

By the horrible malice, in the words, you may know who is meant: however, this we gain by it, that by their own confession, Mary is the daughter of Eli; which accords with this genealogy of the evangelist, who traces it from Mary, under her husband Joseph;

It is important that Mary's line be mentioned in as much as to confirm that he validates the requirements of being in the line of King David. Additionally, it was held that if you were not born of a Jewish mother, you were not Jewish. The bloodline then become important.

I would not say that Ken. I see it more as your set of beliefs and there is nothing wrong with that. And I completely agree that the spirit is greater. It is my belief that we are reincarnated, which IMO, the Bible can be argued to have intimated. (Another great dicussion point!). In my belief, we are here with each new life to try to enlighten our spirits on this journey.

LOL - It would seem like we could go on forever with new subject matter.

I separate faiths into two general categories; the first being how man can get to enlightenment or become a god or one with God by his own efforts; the second being that only God enlightens man and only He can unite man with Himself.

Reincarnation being the first, and Judeo/Christian the second.

Interesting take Ken. I looked at this from a differing POV and applied to your thinking to the book by Twain..Huckleberry Finn, a book I loathe. I had this discussion with my sister, who is a English Prof and she loves the book. She and I talked about your take at length and it gave us both a new POV. I concur that it is possible the differing views could be to incite one to think of this from different angles. Very intriquing Ken.

Book reading has to be captivating for me or be of great interest. Hucklebery Finn was not one of them.

As we understand it, the following books were people specific:

Matthew to the Jews so it would have a Jewish emphasis portraying Jesus as the Messiah..
Mark was the Romans presenting Jesus as a servant, in stark contrast to the Roman viewpoint that Romans were special and everyone else were servants. It was written to mainly the Christian Romans.
Luke to the Greeks (Gentiles), addressing Jesus as the son of Man and God of all mankind with the genealogy all the way to Adam.
John was written to express the pre-existence of Jesus and his position before the Word became flesh. - Written to the church in General.

 

[Kenny]

Severe denial.

The many contradictions are there because it was of no concern to the people who created the canon, as they understood the context lost by many modern men.

That is a point held by some.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Really guys?

There are contradictions in the Bible and that doesn't change the Bible's message.

Scripture says there is no error in the Word (not the words). In other words, Christ does not lie. The Bible wasn't written by Christ, it was by God's prophets and the Apostles.

Another example, I can write down one and one is three in the first chapter of my book. In the second, I can write one and one equals four.

That doesn't change that the answer is two. That's what the focus should be, not on what it specifically written in the text; unless your faith is depended on what's written and not the Word (Christ) Himself.

 

[Kenny]

This is 1 Timothy 6:14,15. I had to look up to see if it was all caps "LORD" or Lord in KJV. I see it isn't all-caps LORD in the translation you are using. You are right, Ken, at times the bible also refers to Jesus as a lord, and in this case he is the preeminent lord of all those humans that have been called lord.

In that it was listed as "only Sovereign"--I think your point is mute.

Additionally, the original documents were written in all caps therefore, I'm not sure your position of CAPS IS PLAUSIBLE AS ALL OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING THE WORD "LORD" WAS WRITTEN IN CAPS. THUS WE MUST LOOK AT THE CONTEXT OF "ONLY SOVEREIGN" AS THE DEFINING MEANING:

The earliest Greek manuscripts were written in all capital letters (called uncials), and were written without spaces between the words but with some punctuation, though the punctuation seems not to have been used consistently
Punctuating the Bible

 

[outhouse]

There are contradictions in the Bible and that doesn't change the Bible's message.

That's is my point.

Accept then for what they are, don't ruin the beauty of these pieces by a literal interpretation that just ruins what the authors were trying to do.

 

[outhouse]

That is a point held by some.

Most not some.

 

[JoStories]

Really guys?

There are contradictions in the Bible and that doesn't change the Bible's message.

Scripture says there is no error in the Word (not the words). In other words, Christ does not lie. The Bible wasn't written by Christ, it was by God's prophets and the Apostles.

Another example, I can write down one and one is three in the first chapter of my book. In the second, I can write one and one equals four.

That doesn't change that the answer is two. That's what the focus should be, not on what it specifically written in the text; unless your faith is depended on what's written and not the Word (Christ) Himself.

I agree with you, however I would also say that for many, the accuracy of the bible in total is what they beat people over the head with. Having read at length and in fact studied in depth, the book by Matthew Fox on the Sermon on the Mount, I agree that the message that one takes away is more important than taking the words literally. But again, even here on this forum some have stated that my views on what I have read from the Bible is erroneous because I don't believe in the divinity of Christ. So while you are correct that the message is more important, try explaining that to the fundamentalists here.

 

[JoStories]

That's is my point.

Accept then for what they are, don't ruin the beauty of these pieces by a literal interpretation that just ruins what the authors were trying to do.

Exactly outhouse. You and I have both seen those here who wish to tell us how 'sinful' we are and how we are doomed to hell, etc. it would seem, at least to me, that it is they that have not gotten the true message.

 

[JoStories]

Thank you Jo,

Obviously we have come to our own conclusions. My explanations are simply for information and understanding sake.

There is an additional quote that John Gill mentions that confirms that it was Mary's line. It is mentioned in a derogatory fashion, but none the less confirms who her father was:


It is important that Mary's line be mentioned in as much as to confirm that he validates the requirements of being in the line of King David. Additionally, it was held that if you were not born of a Jewish mother, you were not Jewish. The bloodline then become important.



LOL - It would seem like we could go on forever with new subject matter.

I separate faiths into two general categories; the first being how man can get to enlightenment or become a god or one with God by his own efforts; the second being that only God enlightens man and only He can unite man with Himself.

Reincarnation being the first, and Judeo/Christian the second.




Book reading has to be captivating for me or be of great interest. Hucklebery Finn was not one of them.

As we understand it, the following books were people specific:

Matthew to the Jews so it would have a Jewish emphasis portraying Jesus as the Messiah..
Mark was the Romans presenting Jesus as a servant, in stark contrast to the Roman viewpoint that Romans were special and everyone else were servants. It was written to mainly the Christian Romans.
Luke to the Greeks (Gentiles), addressing Jesus as the son of Man and God of all mankind with the genealogy all the way to Adam.
John was written to express the pre-existence of Jesus and his position before the Word became flesh. - Written to the church in General.

Ken,, I will reply to you in the morning. I cannot do this with my sight on my iPad with a post like this.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Oops liked.

Exactly.

That's is my point.

Accept then for what they are, don't ruin the beauty of these pieces by a literal interpretation that just ruins what the authors were trying to do.

 

[Kenny]

Ken,, I will reply to you in the morning. I cannot do this with my sight on my iPad with a post like this.

No rush, Jo.

My time is equally difficult to find. However, I have enjoyed the discourse.

 

[Kolibri]

Additionally, the original documents were written in all caps therefore, I'm not sure your position of CAPS IS PLAUSIBLE AS ALL OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING THE WORD "LORD" WAS WRITTEN IN CAPS. THUS WE MUST LOOK AT THE CONTEXT OF "ONLY SOVEREIGN" AS THE DEFINING MEANING:

what? seriously what?

KJV. King James Version. Not original documents. In the King James Version of the Bible, as well as many other translations in English the all caps LORD and GOD are substituted for places where the translators recognized that the tetegrammaton or the equivalent translation belonged.

"A major departure from the practice of the American Standard Version is the rendering of the Divine Name, the “Tetragrammaton.” The American Standard Version used the term “Jehovah”; the King James Version had employed this in four places, but everywhere else, except in three cases where it was employed as part of a proper name, used the English word Lord (or in certain cases God) printed in capitals. The present revision returns to the procedure of the King James Version, which follows the precedent of the ancient Greek and Latin translators and the long established practice in the reading of the Hebrew scriptures in the synagogue." - Preface to the Revised Standard Version of the Bible (1971)

 

[Kenny]

what? seriously what?

KJV. King James Version. Not original documents. In the King James Version of the Bible, as well as many other translations in English the all caps LORD and GOD are substituted for places where the translators recognized that the tetegrammaton or the equivalent translation belonged.

"A major departure from the practice of the American Standard Version is the rendering of the Divine Name, the “Tetragrammaton.” The American Standard Version used the term “Jehovah”; the King James Version had employed this in four places, but everywhere else, except in three cases where it was employed as part of a proper name, used the English word Lord (or in certain cases God) printed in capitals. The present revision returns to the procedure of the King James Version, which follows the precedent of the ancient Greek and Latin translators and the long established practice in the reading of the Hebrew scriptures in the synagogue." - Preface to the Revised Standard Version of the Bible (1971)

Are you saying that the originals were not in caps?

 

[Kolibri]

Are you saying that the originals were not in caps?

I was not discussing the originals in the first place. I was looking at my electronic copy of the King James Version to see if the "lord(s)" in question was in all caps in English or not.

 

[JoStories]

Thank you Jo,
Obviously we have come to our own conclusions. My explanations are simply for information and understanding sake.

There is an additional quote that John Gill mentions that confirms that it was Mary's line. It is mentioned in a derogatory fashion, but none the less confirms who her father was:
``that saw, (yle tb Myrm) , "Mary the daughter of Eli" in the shades, hanging by the fibres of her breasts; and there are that say, the gate, or, as elsewhere F3, the bar of the gate of hell is fixed to her ear.''
F3 Ib. Chagiga, fol. 77. 4.

By the horrible malice, in the words, you may know who is meant: however, this we gain by it, that by their own confession, Mary is the daughter of Eli; which accords with this genealogy of the evangelist, who traces it from Mary, under her husband Joseph;
It is important that Mary's line be mentioned in as much as to confirm that he validates the requirements of being in the line of King David. Additionally, it was held that if you were not born of a Jewish mother, you were not Jewish. The bloodline then become important.

I agree about this corroborating Mary's line, however, that does not diminish that the messiah, at least from the Jewish POV, has to have come from the paternal line. IOW, it would have had to have come from Joseph and not Mary.

LOL - It would seem like we could go on forever with new subject matter.

I separate faiths into two general categories; the first being how man can get to enlightenment or become a god or one with God by his own efforts; the second being that only God enlightens man and only He can unite man with Himself.

I can see your point and its a valid one of course but I don't think its that simple. The Christian faith is rife with people who were trying to become enlightened. The mystics of Christianity, for example. St Francis of Assisi, St Teresa of Avila, St Bernard of Clairvaux, Fr. Thomas Merton, Hildegard of Bengin, and so on. If you have any interest in reading about Christian mysticism, I suggest Ursula King's examination of the subject.

Reincarnation being the first, and Judeo/Christian the second.

Perhaps but again, one can make an argument that reincarnation is a part of the Bible. Malachi speaks of Elijah returning before the "great and dreadful day". and in Matthew, Jesus states that John is Elijah.

Book reading has to be captivating for me or be of great interest. Hucklebery Finn was not one of them.

As we understand it, the following books were people specific:
Matthew to the Jews so it would have a Jewish emphasis portraying Jesus as the Messiah..
Mark was the Romans presenting Jesus as a servant, in stark contrast to the Roman viewpoint that Romans were special and everyone else were servants. It was written to mainly the Christian Romans.
Luke to the Greeks (Gentiles), addressing Jesus as the son of Man and God of all mankind with the genealogy all the way to Adam.
John was written to express the pre-existence of Jesus and his position before the Word became flesh. - Written to the church in General.

Interesting view. However, do you see that this same argument could be intimating that the Gospels were written by someone with a clear intent in the message? If the books are, as you say, 'people specific', how does that jive with the idea that the Bible is 'God breathed'?
As always, I look forward to your opinions in this. Bright blessings to you Ken. Jo

 

[Kenny]

I was not discussing the originals in the first place. I was looking at my electronic copy of the King James Version to see if the "lord(s)" in question was in all caps in English or not.

Thus, the statement ONLY SOVEREIGN becomes crucial as does the fact that Thomas say, "My Lord and my God".

 

[sojourner]

I agree with you, however I would also say that for many, the accuracy of the bible in total is what they beat people over the head with. Having read at length and in fact studied in depth, the book by Matthew Fox on the Sermon on the Mount, I agree that the message that one takes away is more important than taking the words literally. But again, even here on this forum some have stated that my views on what I have read from the Bible is erroneous because I don't believe in the divinity of Christ. So while you are correct that the message is more important, try explaining that to the fundamentalists here.

One can't explain anything to fundamentalists, because they're so fanatical about already having "the RIGHT answers." Their God-given reason for existence is to teach the rest of us poor, misguided, unbelieving morons about THE TRUTH!!! Reality means nothing -- the "Faith" is "not of this world." Peer-reviewed scholarship means nothing -- "Scholars" have only been taught the biased "religion of men." If everyone would only believe as they believe, the world would then be ushered into God's Kingdom. They can't see that they're largely the ones responsible for the petty divisions in religion, because their view of THE TRUTH!!! is so narrow that division is inherent in that view.