Are there any contradictions in the Bible?

[sojourner]

The reverse is not a bad things. So-called "NT concepts" are often found to not be really "NT" concepts at all, but Greek philosophy read into the passages. And the Christians were told to use the Scriptures "for setting matters straight." - 2 Tim 3:16,17

That's not what I'm talking about.

 

[outhouse]

It's always a huge mistake to blur NT concepts into OT passages.

Yep, very bad habit. It takes all the text out of its original context, and people are forcing a new meaning where it was not intended.

 

[JoStories]

Yes, another check mark on things to do. Currently I am reading a book by Bart Ehrman along with my required reading in my ongoing studies in my current course of "The Life of Christ".
I think there are other reasons for the need of "enlightenment" because of the dark ages. Since my source of "enlightenment" still is Bible specific, I found the following to be true, (not just because of scripture but by experience), that our spirits are "enlightened" the moment we are united with God through the born-again experience but our soul goes through a series of illuminations that carries us from one point of faith to a higher point of faith. Our spirits cannot be any more enlightened because it is united with the Spirit of God but our soul (mind, will and emotions) needs to be renewed day by day.

I love the books by Erhman. He has done several excellent courses one can get through "The Great Courses". Of course, there is a large group who dismiss him stating that he abandoned his faith and now is only trying to undermine that faith. Having read the book you mention, I know firsthand and it is one of the texts I am using in my dissertation. An excellent source.
I agree that enlightenment through baptism is clearly one method to acheive same. However, I would also say that that is not effective for many. It did not work for me. I was lost in the Pyrenees many years ago when I went to Portugal and Spain. I thought I was going to die. I sat down, mired in self pity and had an experience that forever changed me and my idea of God. So the idea of baptism creating this same spiritual experience is easily understood by me.

Yes, I am familiar with that position. Of course, we don't subscribe to that position. Our position is that there are two people who did not die, that being Enoch and Elijah. The possibility is that they are the two witnesses described in Revelation and will eventually die and be resurrected during the "great and dreadful day".

One of the reasons we don't believe that Elijah reincarnated into John the Baptist is because of what Jesus said:

Matt 17:11 Jesus replied, "To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things.
12 But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands."

In Malachi, the "great and dreadful day" is the end times. Most people quote verse 12 and forget verse 11. In verse 11, Jesus makes mention of that "great and dreadful day" with a period and then the next thought. That John came in the spirit of Elijah (fervor) and but it is separate from the actual reappearing of the Elijah

Ok but I would ask you this: If Elijah had not died and was taken corporeally into heaven, why did the people not recognize him? Are you saying that the idea of Christ's divinity was so oblivious to some that they did not see him as divine? And that that same phenomena applies to Elijah? Also, if John "came in the spirit of Elijah" is that what reincarnation is? To be reborn into another body?

Shouldn't make a difference. If made by "inspiration", it appears for me to have an overall purpose and it provides pieces of a puzzle that gives it a beautiful picture.

Agreed that it makes no difference to you but for me, there is a vast difference. Either a book is written by God, as fundamentalists believe or it was written by men. There is no middle ground. Further, IMO, God would not have made errors or rather, to put it more politely, the entirety would have been clear and stated the same things in all the books. There would be no disclaimer to Mark with those added verses if God wrote this.

Look forward to your views Ken. Jo

 

[sojourner]

Agreed that it makes no difference to you but for me, there is a vast difference. Either a book is written by God, as fundamentalists believe or it was written by men. There is no middle ground. Further, IMO, God would not have made errors or rather, to put it more politely, the entirety would have been clear and stated the same things in all the books. There would be no disclaimer to Mark with those added verses if God wrote this.

The sticky point is the gap between what we know the bible to be, and what we believe the bible to be. It really makes more sense for belief to be informed by reality than by emotionalism. So, on that basis, what do we know about the bible?
1) We know that the bible was written by several authors over the course of 700 years.
2) We know the texts were written in two ancient languages, neither of which are either easy to read, or easy to translate.
3) We know the texts went through a sometimes extensive series of revisions, editing and compilation before being set in the canon.
4) We know that the canon wasn't set until about 450 C.E. We know that the some stories appear several times and that they contain differing details.
5) We know that the Judaic ideas of the afterlife differ from the Greek ideas of the afterlife.
6) We know that the ancients got some scientific facts wrong.
7) We know that the creation myths and other early stories were lifted from earlier, Sumerian and Babylonian myths.

And there's more. The point is, even if this is all we know, the chances are 100% that there are contradictions -- not only because we've found them, but because chances are that a collection of documents written so long ago, and highly-edited, translated from different ancient languages, is bound to contain contradictions. And so it does!

Let's just get rid of this "belief" bugaboo (whether it's true or not -- we can't prove it), and call the discrepancies what they are: contradictions -- rather than vainly trying to brush them off as "man's misunderstanding." They're contradictions.

 

[Kenny]

I thought the same thing when I first read a similar account regarding a judgement against the king of Tyre at Ezekiel 28 and am still of two minds about that one. But in the case of Isaiah 14, as I look the rest of the prophetic proverb there is too much going on that can not happen to a spirit creature. Just look, please, at verses 9-11.

Even the Grave (or "Sheol.") underneath is stirred up
To meet you when you come.
Because of you, it awakens those powerless in death,
All the oppressive leaders (Lit., "the he-goats.") of the earth.
It makes all the kings of the nations rise from their thrones.
All of them speak up and say to you,
'Have you also become weak like us?
Have you become like us?
Down to the Grave your pride had been brought,
The sound of your stringed instruments.
Maggots are spread beneath you as a bed,
And worms are your covering.'
How you have fallen from the heaven,
O shining one, son of the dawn!
How you have been cut down to the earth,
You who vanquished nations.

Satan does not go to Sheol. He will go to Gehenna, or the lake of fire instead.
What nations will be around to say to him, 'have you become weak like us?'

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes... the Old Testament is a hidden picture and the New Testament is a revealed picture. And certainly there are people on both sides of the coin on this one.

Looking at it in the NASB

4 that you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon, and say, "How the oppressor has ceased, And how fury has ceased! - Yes, here it is talking about the king of Babylon
5"The LORD has broken the staff of the wicked, The scepter of rulers
6 Which used to strike the peoples in fury with unceasing * strokes, Which subdued the nations in anger with unrestrained * persecution.
7 "The whole earth is at rest and is quiet; They break forth into shouts of joy.
8 "Even the cypress trees rejoice over you, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, 'Since you were laid low, no tree cutter comes up against us.'
9 "Sheol from beneath * is excited over you to meet you when you come; It arouses for you the spirits of the dead, all the leaders of the earth; It raises all the kings of the nations from their thrones. Satan does go to Sheol and then gets cast into the Lake of Fire. (Rev 20:3 - the bottomless pit - then the Lake of Fire - Rev. 20:10)
10 "They will all respond and sayto you, 'Even you have been made weak as we, You have become like us.
11 'Your pomp and the music of your harpsHave been brought down to Sheol; Maggots are spread out as your bed beneath you And worms are your covering.'
12"How you have fallen from heaven, Here is an obvious change. The king of Babylon was never in heaven. It has a double meaning speaking of the position of authority of the king and the position of Satan -
O star of the morning, sonof the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations!
13 "But you said in your heart, 'I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God, And I will sit on the mount of assembly In the recesses of the north. (recesses of the north refers to God's abode)
14 'I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.' (Again a clear reference to Satan's desire as well as the king of Babylon. The references continue throughout signaling both at the same time. Even in Daniel's time there was a clear cut relationship between the spiritual and the natural in leadership of regions when Daniel was praying.
15 "Nevertheless you will be thrust down to Sheol, To the recesses of the pit.
16"Those who see you will gaze at you, They will ponder overyou, saying, 'Is this the man who made the earth tremble, Who shook kingdoms,
17 Who made the world like a wilderness And overthrew its cities, Who did not allow his prisoners to go home?'
18 "All the kings of the nations lie in glory, Each in his own tomb.

Regarding Col 1:15-17, I am still lost in how "first-born of all creation" is somehow changed to mean "Creator". The creator stands apart from the creation. The first of the pottery at the hands of the Great Potter is not the same as the Great Potter.

A man can make a robot and supply it power to make other robots. Does that mean that the first robot is now the man?

A better way of looking at it. If a robot has the supply to make other robots, does that mean that the robot created all things and was never created?

 

[Ouroboros]

Agreed that it makes no difference to you but for me, there is a vast difference. Either a book is written by God, as fundamentalists believe or it was written by men. There is no middle ground.

Yes, there is. Most of the time there's a middle ground even if people can't see it. Was this post written by my or my fingers? Was it transferred to you by my computer or by internet or by an ISP or by a modem or by a cable or by ...

Different categories of components can co-exist in the same system for the production of something.

For instance, one answer is: Man is God. That means both man and God wrote the Bible.

Or: God had man write it containing contradictions on purpose. I can think of reasons why a God would put contradictions in a book, can you? As an example, God put them in there because he wants to make sure people realize these errors and decide not to rely on the book as their only guide in life. Perhaps God wants people to see that they can't make the book their God (which it is to those who claim there are no contradictions, the book has become their God instead of God, an idol).

Further, IMO, God would not have made errors or rather, to put it more politely, the entirety would have been clear and stated the same things in all the books. There would be no disclaimer to Mark with those added verses if God wrote this.

We wouldn't know if God intended it that way or not. I'm not saying that God wrote the Bible, but your argument is based on the assumption that you know what God would do and why he would do it. If there is a God, we wouldn't know why.

I think your argument only works against people who claim that the perfection of the book is evidence that God wrote it. The thing is, we don't know what a God would do or how. Perhaps God wanted humans to write their stories about him, and leave all the errors in there to show the human aspect.

As an example, I do some art. Sometimes in my art work there are errors, flaws, etc. I don't fix them. Do you know why? I know why. Can you figure out why I leave those flaws in there?

 

[Kolibri]

A better way of looking at it. If a robot has the supply to make other robots, does that mean that the robot created all things and was never created?

does the contractor get the credit of the architect? does the honest contractor steal the glory from the architect? If the contractor values the architect, would he be happy about people giving him all the credit?

and a robot not created? the robot somehow put itself together? design requires a designer. And unlike God Almighty, Jesus is said to have a beginning - a start to his existence.

 

[Kenny]

does the contractor get the credit of the architect? does the honest contractor steal the glory from the architect? If the contractor values the architect, would he be happy about people giving him all the credit?

They both get credit because both were needed.

and a robot not created? the robot somehow put itself together? design requires a designer. And unlike God Almighty, Jesus is said to have a beginning - a start to his existence.

Not really.

1) Jesus isn't a robot
2) The Word forever existed.

 

[Kolibri]

2) The Word forever existed.

John 1:1, first clause. "Before the beginning was the Word"?
Colossians 1:15 "firstborn of all creation".

"Reu'ben, you are my firstborn, my vigor and the beginning of my procreative power, the excellence of dignity and the excellence of strength." - Ge 49:3

"He should recognize as the firstborn the unloved one's son by giving him the double portion of everything he has, for that one is the beginning of his procreative power." - De 21:17a

Finally he struck down all the firstborn of Egypt,
The beginning of their productive power in the tents of Ham.
- Ps 78:51

Then he struck down every firstborn in their land,
The beginning of their procreative power.
- Ps 105:36

How does the Bible self-interpret firstborn? "the beginning of procreative power."

 

[Kenny]

John 1:1, first clause. "Before the beginning was the Word"?
Colossians 1:15 "firstborn of all creation".

"Reu'ben, you are my firstborn, my vigor and the beginning of my procreative power, the excellence of dignity and the excellence of strength." - Ge 49:3

"He should recognize as the firstborn the unloved one's son by giving him the double portion of everything he has, for that one is the beginning of his procreative power." - De 21:17a

Finally he struck down all the firstborn of Egypt,
The beginning of their productive power in the tents of Ham.
- Ps 78:51

Then he struck down every firstborn in their land,
The beginning of their procreative power.
- Ps 105:36

How does the Bible self-interpret firstborn? "the beginning of procreative power."

Wrong version...

In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, the Word was God. Reminds me when the Serpent added to the word of God. It was the beginning of the downfall.

 

[JoStories]

[QUOTE="sojourner, post: 4213246, member: 5010"]The sticky point is the gap between what we know the bible to be, and what we believe the bible to be. It really makes more sense for belief to be informed by reality than by emotionalism. So, on that basis, what do we know about the bible?
1) We know that the bible was written by several authors over the course of 700 years.
2) We know the texts were written in two ancient languages, neither of which are either easy to read, or easy to translate.
3) We know the texts went through a sometimes extensive series of revisions, editing and compilation before being set in the canon.
4) We know that the canon wasn't set until about 450 C.E. We know that the some stories appear several times and that they contain differing details.
5) We know that the Judaic ideas of the afterlife differ from the Greek ideas of the afterlife.
6) We know that the ancients got some scientific facts wrong.
7) We know that the creation myths and other early stories were lifted from earlier, Sumerian and Babylonian myths.

And there's more. The point is, even if this is all we know, the chances are 100% that there are contradictions -- not only because we've found them, but because chances are that a collection of documents written so long ago, and highly-edited, translated from different ancient languages, is bound to contain contradictions. And so it does!

Let's just get rid of this "belief" bugaboo (whether it's true or not -- we can't prove it), and call the discrepancies what they are: contradictions -- rather than vainly trying to brush them off as "man's misunderstanding." They're contradictions.[/QUOTE]

You and I agree that there are plenty of contradictions but you understand that for the believer and in particular, for the fundamentalist, what you and I believe has no bearing whatsoever. They believe it and for them, that is all that matters.

 

[JoStories]

Yes, there is. Most of the time there's a middle ground even if people can't see it. Was this post written by my or my fingers? Was it transferred to you by my computer or by internet or by an ISP or by a modem or by a cable or by ...

Different categories of components can co-exist in the same system for the production of something.

For instance, one answer is: Man is God. That means both man and God wrote the Bible.

Or: God had man write it containing contradictions on purpose. I can think of reasons why a God would put contradictions in a book, can you? As an example, God put them in there because he wants to make sure people realize these errors and decide not to rely on the book as their only guide in life. Perhaps God wants people to see that they can't make the book their God (which it is to those who claim there are no contradictions, the book has become their God instead of God, an idol).


We wouldn't know if God intended it that way or not. I'm not saying that God wrote the Bible, but your argument is based on the assumption that you know what God would do and why he would do it. If there is a God, we wouldn't know why.

I think your argument only works against people who claim that the perfection of the book is evidence that God wrote it. The thing is, we don't know what a God would do or how. Perhaps God wanted humans to write their stories about him, and leave all the errors in there to show the human aspect.

As an example, I do some art. Sometimes in my art work there are errors, flaws, etc. I don't fix them. Do you know why? I know why. Can you figure out why I leave those flaws in there?

I can make an educated guess because I do the same with my art. You leave it because it makes the art more intimately 'yours'. When I do oil,its is the vagueness and the oil gives me the pleasure of allowing me to make mistakes. When I do crewel work or quilts, the sewing and fabrics make it the same thing, mine, and no other is like that.
I am not basing my argument on what God may or may not do. On my path, God does not make choices for us. We make our own to learn from them. Rather, I am attempting, and its a flawed attempt I grant you, to put myself in the shoes of the fundamentalist. Someone who believes the Bible and God are inerrant. IMO, for them, it would not matter if it were you or your fingers making the post, it would be the end results that matter.

 

[JoStories]

Lucifer of Isa 14:12 was not an angel, but the king of Babylon. (vs 4). And this was not a name but part of a sarcastic title being applied to him. The Hebrew word here means "shining one".

Most denominations of Christianity have maintained christianized Babylonish beliefs and customs. This was the result of the foretold apostasy, that the apostles and other faithful elders of the 1st century congregation were acting as a restraint against. Colossians 1:15-17 describes Jesus as "the firstborn of all creation" and goes on to say that "by means of him all [other] things were created...the things visible and the things invisible." Jesus was the only direct creation by God, and he was the only one resurrected directly by Jehovah. Jehovah delegated all other things to be done thru his "master worker." (Prov 8:22-31)

Human perfection does not mean that one is not capable of sin. It only means that one does not have a weakness that makes missing God's standards for humans unavoidable. Adam did not feel shame till after he sinned. And marital lust was not part of the sin as the first couple were commanded to "be fruitful and become many." Besides Prov 5:19 shows that marital lust is very much within God's standards for humans. When it comes to temptations, Jesus was much more severely put to the test then Adam was. He proved loyalty under test. (Heb 4:15) Adam's sin was completely avoidable. In fact one can say that Adam's sin was a deliberate devaluation of God and life.

I disagree with "being divine means being God." It means "pertaining to God" - that which is godlike, or heavenly.

"One" is not always numerical, it also can denote unity, as in "one in purpose".

I agree that the NIV of the Bible with regard to Colossians 1: 15-17 says as you state. I suggest, however, that you read that same passage in the KJV and see where not only is Jesus not mentioned at all but the entire passage is presented in question form. It is almost as if the two passages were unrelated. Or at least pertaining to two separate issues.

 

[sojourner]

[QUOTE="sojourner, post: 4213246, member: 5010"]The sticky point is the gap between what we know the bible to be, and what we believe the bible to be. It really makes more sense for belief to be informed by reality than by emotionalism. So, on that basis, what do we know about the bible?
1) We know that the bible was written by several authors over the course of 700 years.
2) We know the texts were written in two ancient languages, neither of which are either easy to read, or easy to translate.
3) We know the texts went through a sometimes extensive series of revisions, editing and compilation before being set in the canon.
4) We know that the canon wasn't set until about 450 C.E. We know that the some stories appear several times and that they contain differing details.
5) We know that the Judaic ideas of the afterlife differ from the Greek ideas of the afterlife.
6) We know that the ancients got some scientific facts wrong.
7) We know that the creation myths and other early stories were lifted from earlier, Sumerian and Babylonian myths.

And there's more. The point is, even if this is all we know, the chances are 100% that there are contradictions -- not only because we've found them, but because chances are that a collection of documents written so long ago, and highly-edited, translated from different ancient languages, is bound to contain contradictions. And so it does!

Let's just get rid of this "belief" bugaboo (whether it's true or not -- we can't prove it), and call the discrepancies what they are: contradictions -- rather than vainly trying to brush them off as "man's misunderstanding." They're contradictions.

You and I agree that there are plenty of contradictions but you understand that for the believer and in particular, for the fundamentalist, what you and I believe has no bearing whatsoever. They believe it and for them, that is all that matters.[/QUOTE]
And they'll continue to be woefully wrong.

 

[Ouroboros]

I can make an educated guess because I do the same with my art. You leave it because it makes the art more intimately 'yours'. When I do oil,its is the vagueness and the oil gives me the pleasure of allowing me to make mistakes. When I do crewel work or quilts, the sewing and fabrics make it the same thing, mine, and no other is like that.

Agree. And if there is a God and we're supposed to be made in the image of God, then our creative minds, wanting to design, paint, and such, and even appreciate flaws and mistakes in it because it's personal and sometimes even more beautiful that way, then why can't God be that way too? Or is our ability to make art only ours and not God's in that case?

 

[Kolibri]

Wrong version...

In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, the Word was God. Reminds me when the Serpent added to the word of God. It was the beginning of the downfall.

Exactly. There was no "before" in John 1:1. the "in" correction was what I was looking for. Jesus was there "in the beginning". He was not there before the beginning. He had a beginning. Your statement was that the Word was eternal. And he was not.

 

[Kolibri]

I agree that the NIV of the Bible with regard to Colossians 1: 15-17 says as you state. I suggest, however, that you read that same passage in the KJV and see where not only is Jesus not mentioned at all but the entire passage is presented in question form. It is almost as if the two passages were unrelated. Or at least pertaining to two separate issues.

I agree. Some translations have specific verses that can be understood more readily one way than another. It can be frustrating because it increases the confusion. Even punctuation can create issues. Take Luke 23:43 for example.

"And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." - KJV
"And he said to him: 'Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise.'" - NWT

Big difference just by noting where the comma was placed.

 

[Skwim]

I agree. Some translations have specific verses that can be understood more readily one way than another. It can be frustrating because it increases the confusion. Even punctuation can create issues. Take Luke 23:43 for example.

"And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." - KJV
"And he said to him: 'Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise.'" - NWT

Big difference just by noting where the comma was placed.

Assuming all the other versions are correct the JWs really blew this one.

 

[Kolibri]

Assuming all the other versions are correct the JWs really blew this one.

Without added information it could go either way.

Additional Information:
Did Jesus go to Paradise upon death? Did the unrighteous man that died next to him go to Paradise when he died?

"[David] foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he forsaken in the Grave (or "Hades.") nor did his flesh see corruption. (or "decay.")" - Acts 2:31

For you will not leave me in (or "abandon my soul to.") the Grave. (or "Sheol.")
You will not allow your loyal one to see the pit. (or possibly, "to see corruption.")
- Psalm 16:10

"Martha said to [Jesus]: 'I know [Lazarus] will rise in the resurrection on the last day.'" - John 11:24

Jesus did not go to Paradise on the day of his death, nor did the unrighteous man. Both Jesus and that man went to the Grave and someday yet in the future, ("the last day.") that unrighteous man will wake up in a beautiful park-like garden.

People who translated the Bible with the misconception that man has an immortal soul put the comma before the "today" instead of after at Luke 23:43.

 

[Kenny]

Exactly. There was no "before" in John 1:1. the "in" correction was what I was looking for. Jesus was there "in the beginning". He was not there before the beginning. He had a beginning. Your statement was that the Word was eternal. And he was not.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, the Word was God.

I can take it in harmony with scripture or I can say there was no God before the beginning. The second, in our context, is inconceivable therefore the first is correct.