Bible contradictions

[an anarchist]

When I was a teenager, Christian apologetics was my thing. I would like to create a thread about contradictions in the Bible. Believers of it often claim it is without contradiction, something I used to tout.
Let’s compile the contradictions, and let’s try to explain them if possible.
I’ll start.
The account of how King Saul died. 1 Samuel 31 says that Saul killed himself, yet immediately after, in 2 Samuel 1 , an amalekite says that he killed Saul.
So context is important, right? On first glance, there are contradictions in the accounts. I read a scholarly commentary book on the books of Samuel, so I’ll relay what i learned from it. The scholar said that amalekites were thematically supposed to represent deceit. The original audience of the text would have understood that the amalekite was lying for personal gain, he did not really kill Saul.
Also, 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel is from the same author. Would it be likely that an author would contradict himself right away?
So that is one contradiction shoddily explained away. Let’s bring out all the contradictions!

 

[Heyo]

Let’s compile the contradictions,

Been done:

 

[stanberger]

Been done:

o t ' god is one ' n t ' god is 3. trinity trigod ' quran ' god is one ' quran had to come down. 'seasons may change but word of god is eternal '

 

[AdamjEdgar]

There is no contradiction between 1 Sam 31:4 and 2 Sam 1:10.

One is an account of the truth, the other a porky by an opportunistic Amalekite intent on winning the favour of a new king by lying to him. The fact the Amalekite was struck down dead tells us exactly where his deceit got him!

 

[Mark La Buda]

When I was a teenager, Christian apologetics was my thing. I would like to create a thread about contradictions in the Bible. Believers of it often claim it is without contradiction, something I used to tout.
Let’s compile the contradictions, and let’s try to explain them if possible.
I’ll start.
The account of how King Saul died. 1 Samuel 31 says that Saul killed himself, yet immediately after, in 2 Samuel 1 , an amalekite says that he killed Saul.
So context is important, right? On first glance, there are contradictions in the accounts. I read a scholarly commentary book on the books of Samuel, so I’ll relay what i learned from it. The scholar said that amalekites were thematically supposed to represent deceit. The original audience of the text would have understood that the amalekite was lying for personal gain, he did not really kill Saul.
Also, 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel is from the same author. Would it be likely that an author would contradict himself right away?
So that is one contradiction shoddily explained away. Let’s bring out all the contradictions!

Do you honest feel that it is beneficial looking for contradictions in the Bible other than learning and applying its inspiring message to help you change your personality?

Consider the accounts in more depth. The writers of both of the books are accredited to Samuel, Nathan or Gad-all inspired and prophets of God. Considering what the account in 1 Samuel 31:4, the inspired writers learned about the manner of Saul’s demise-most likely-witnessed by the Amalekite, another of Saul’s soldiers or even by divine inspiration. In 2 Samuel 1:10, the author reported what he witnessed or heard about the testimony of the Amalekite-a pagan-to David. Consider the background, characters of and creditability of both witnesses. Do you feel that it is very likely the pagan embellished the account supposing that he would receive favor from David since he was aware that Saul had sought to destroy David?

 

[Truth in love]

Been done:

That vid is about a 50/50. Many of those issues are invented. There are however many parts of the text that in congruent.

 

[Truth in love]

When I was a teenager, Christian apologetics was my thing. I would like to create a thread about contradictions in the Bible. Believers of it often claim it is without contradiction, something I used to tout.
Let’s compile the contradictions, and let’s try to explain them if possible.
I’ll start.
The account of how King Saul died. 1 Samuel 31 says that Saul killed himself, yet immediately after, in 2 Samuel 1 , an amalekite says that he killed Saul.
So context is important, right? On first glance, there are contradictions in the accounts. I read a scholarly commentary book on the books of Samuel, so I’ll relay what i learned from it. The scholar said that amalekites were thematically supposed to represent deceit. The original audience of the text would have understood that the amalekite was lying for personal gain, he did not really kill Saul.
Also, 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel is from the same author. Would it be likely that an author would contradict himself right away?
So that is one contradiction shoddily explained away. Let’s bring out all the contradictions!

I think we can make a few categories.

1. Historic like how did Saul die.
2. Doctrine

also we need to ask is this an error in translation or transcription vs. an error in writing.


If we accept that people are imperfect then a few minor historical issues are not a big deal. The issue is do we miss out on doctrine?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Let’s compile the contradictions, and let’s try to explain them if possible.

A remarkably exciting and novel idea ... save for the fact that it's been done over and over and over and ...

 

[RabbiO]

A remarkably exciting and novel idea ... save for the fact that it's been done over and over and over and ...

Try to keep in my mind that among his several issues the OP is only 23.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do you honest feel that it is beneficial looking for contradictions in the Bible other than learning and applying its inspiring message to help you change your personality?

Do you honestly feel that it's beneficial to tell someone that he needs help to change his personality?

 

[Heyo]

If we accept that people are imperfect then a few minor historical issues are not a big deal.

If we accept that people are imperfect and accept that the bible (and other holy books) are written by people with no divine intervention, all errors are excusable.
It is only an issue when believers insist that their books are "holy" (= divinely inspired). Then the conclusion must be that the gods are imperfect, too.

 

[Truth in love]

If we accept that people are imperfect and accept that the bible (and other holy books) are written by people with no divine intervention, all errors are excusable.
It is only an issue when believers insist that their books are "holy" (= divinely inspired). Then the conclusion must be that the gods are imperfect, too.

Lets say God talks to Bob. God's message is 100% pure and correct. Bob writes in down and in a super human feat Bob makes a perfect transcript of what God said.

Over the next few thousand years transcribers make errors, some preast really dislike his favorite pet sin being called out so he deletes that one, documents get managed and people are guessing what "should" be there. People come along and try to translate the message in a new and very different language. Each of these steps can introduce error into the text. None of this makes God less and honestly Bob is still a pretty good guy too.

 

[Heyo]

Lets say God talks to Bob. God's message is 100% pure and correct. Bob writes in down and in a super human feat Bob makes a perfect transcript of what God said.

Over the next few thousand years transcribers make errors, some preast really dislike his favorite pet sin being called out so he deletes that one, documents get managed and people are guessing what "should" be there. People come along and try to translate the message in a new and very different language. Each of these steps can introduce error into the text. None of this makes God less and honestly Bob is still a pretty good guy too.

I agree with that. But then that god is missing for a few thousand years and nothing is known about it. Not what most believers try to tell me.

 

[Truth in love]

I agree with that. But then that god is missing for a few thousand years and nothing is known about it. Not what most believers try to tell me.

I guess it depends on who you talk to and what they believe and see.

I don't have time right now, but one could make a pretty interesting list of events that lead to other events. For example all the conflicts in Europe setting the stage for the Biblical clay and iron kingdoms. The development of technology like a printing press that made literacy so much more available. A lot of stuff has happened and is happening even though its hard to see in the moment.

 

[paarsurrey]

Bible contradictions

The Gospels have contradictions because Jesus never wrote the Gospels, so Jesus should not be accused/blamed for these contradictions, please. Right?

Regards

 

[sojourner]

Lets say God talks to Bob. God's message is 100% pure and correct. Bob writes in down and in a super human feat Bob makes a perfect transcript of what God said.

Over the next few thousand years transcribers make errors, some preast really dislike his favorite pet sin being called out so he deletes that one, documents get managed and people are guessing what "should" be there. People come along and try to translate the message in a new and very different language. Each of these steps can introduce error into the text. None of this makes God less and honestly Bob is still a pretty good guy too.

Except that most contradictions aren’t due to scribal error.

 

[Truth in love]

Except that most contradictions aren’t due to scribal error.

Its a mixed bag. One of the first events on that big Isiah scroll was an error. It happens.

About 80% of the contradictions I found are due to the word "not" being missing or a misdirection of who is speaking in a given verse.

Isa 2:9 And the mean man boweth down, and the great man humbleth himself: therefore forgive them not.
This make zero sense. On the other hand if the mean man boweth down not, and humbleth himself not. This would make a lot of sense.

1 Sam 16:14 ¶ But the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him.

15 And Saul’s servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit from God troubleth thee.

Again if the wording is an evil spirit NOT. these verse makes a ton of sense.
This sorts out all of the very inconsistent behaviors on the part of God.

We are still left with minor historical issues, unclear linage for Christ, and pleanty of room for people to argue over how to be saved, but it solves most of the issues.

 

[pearl]

It is only an issue when believers insist that their books are "holy" (= divinely inspired). Then the conclusion must be that the gods are imperfect, too.

As Moses was divinely inspired as the author of Exodus? But how does man inspired by God make known God's will to the rest of men, making public the revelation received in a personal mystical encounter with God? The revealed will of God must be made known to man in a way proportionate to man's way of being. It must be adapted to man's way of thinking and living. God must 'get down' to the level of His pupils, taking men as they are, using what they know, making use of their customs and institutions and transform them. If we understand that 'inspired' does not mean dictated by God, there isn't the same concern for what seemingly are contradictions.

 

[Heyo]

As Moses was divinely inspired as the author of Exodus? But how does man inspired by God make known God's will to the rest of men, making public the revelation received in a personal mystical encounter with God? The revealed will of God must be made known to man in a way proportionate to man's way of being. It must be adapted to man's way of thinking and living. God must 'get down' to the level of His pupils, taking men as they are, using what they know, making use of their customs and institutions and transform them. If we understand that 'inspired' does not mean dictated by God, there isn't the same concern for what seemingly are contradictions.

Then the gods did a poor job at explaining it to their prophets. No matter how you see it, you can't differentiate between an imperfect message from god(s) and something made up by humans.

 

[paarsurrey]

Bible contradictions

The Gospels have contradictions because Jesus never wrote the Gospels, so Jesus should not be accused/blamed for these contradictions, please. Right?

None of the Gospels has been written by any of the Twelve even, one gathers, please. Right?

Regards
________________
"In Christian tradition, the Four Evangelists are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, the authors attributed with the creation of the four Gospel accounts are anonymous. In the New Testament they bear the following titles: the Gospel of Matthew; the Gospel of Mark; the Gospel of Luke; and the Gospel of John."
Four Evangelists - Wikipedia