Biblical Contradictions

[Vadergirl123]

How do you figure that an error isn't an error. Here's the bottom line:

It appears in the Bible.
It is an error.
Therefore, the Bible contains errors.

How do you draw the distinction between "Biblical error" and "copyist error?"

Again if I were to write out that 2+2=4 and someone copies my work and writes 1+2=3 does that make me wrong?? No the person who copied it made a mistake. In the original manuscripts of the bible you most likely won't find the error. It's not a biblical error its a human one.

 

[Vadergirl123]

So when you say that the "Bible" is inerrerent you are not talking about any version of the book we have, you are talking about a collection of documents that we don't have. Your faith may lead you to think that those original documents are conflict free, but since they no longer exist there is no way to know this.

And what is the point of trying to refute the contradictions of the "Bible" we do have if that is not the book you are claiming to be inerrerent?

I'm talking about the bible, and yes there are some copyist errors in it.( but those are human errors). Also actual "contradictions" will more of be the message of the bible going against itself. For example are you saved by grace alone, who God is, etc. Contradictions having to do with numbers and names will be copyist errors most of the time.

 

[Vadergirl123]

So Mary wasn't a virgin?

Yes she was, (Luke 1:34, Matthew 1:23) are a few verses that say so.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Yes she was, again you can read the four gospel accounts

I have read the gospels, more than one time. Then how could Joseph be the father? If she was a virgin, that means that she and Joseph never had sex and thus Joseph can't be the father of Jesus. Adoptive father, yes, but not biological father and thus Jesus wouldn't be of David's lineage.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Ezra was written from about 538-516 B.C. ...

There is general recognition that the editing of Ezra continued well into the Hellenistic era The question of when the core of the book originated depends in the first place on the dates assigned to Ezra himself (assuming him to have been a historic person). The only clue to go by is the note in Ezra 7:7-8 that he arrived in Jerusalem in "the seventh year of Artaxerxes." Unfortunately there were three kings of this name and the text doesn't specify which one. The traditional date, and currently the most popular candidate, is 458 BCE, based on the assumption that the king is Artaxerxes I. A date of 398 BCE, based on the possibility that the king might be Artaxerxes II, was once popular but has been seriously challenged in recent scholarship. A date of 428 BCE, based on the idea that the "seventh" year of Artaxerxes is a mistake for "thirty-seventh" year, has become less popular, as it is based entirely on conjecture. [source]

Just pathetic ...

 

[mycorrhiza]

The Bible was written over a long period of time. Many of the stories were told orally for a long time before they were written down, which means that they were subject to change. There are several contradictions throughout the Bible, whether you acknowledge it or not. The Bible was put together by man, not by God. Several books were left out and several stories were lost. We cannot know if any of the prophets lied about getting revelation from God.

Why not view the Bible as man's ideas about God, partly inspired by God, but ultimately written by man?
Many things about the Bible don't match up with science, so why not interpret these as metaphorical or man-made?

If your God is real, then he gave you the ability to think for yourself. How do you know that the factual errors and contradictions in the Bible isn't his way of testing your faith in Him, over man? Who decided how to interpret the Bible? Man. Who put together the Bible? Man.

 

[Vadergirl123]

I have read the gospels, more than one time. Then how could Joseph be the father? If she was a virgin, that means that she and Joseph never had sex and thus Joseph can't be the father of Jesus. Adoptive father, yes, but not biological father and thus Jesus wouldn't be of David's lineage.

He was a descendant of David through adoption by Joseph and through blood by Mary(Luke 3) she was also a descendant of David

 

[Vadergirl123]

Why not view the Bible as man's ideas about God, partly inspired by God, but ultimately written by man?

Many things about the Bible don't match up with science, so why not interpret these as metaphorical or man-made?

So I'm just wanting to keep this thread focused on biblical contradiction, however if you want to discusss the authority of the bible I'd be more than happy to do that ..but on another thread please.

 

[mycorrhiza]

He was a descendant of David through adoption by Joseph and through blood by Mary(Luke 3) she was also a descendant of David

Where does it say that Mary was a descendant of David? The lineage clearly states that Joseph is the father of Jesus, which indicates relation by blood, not adoptive father.

 

[Vadergirl123]

Just pathetic ...

Reagrdless of when it was written their was still a time difference that explains why the numbers were different. And it's not pathetic to say it was written from that time considering we don't know which King was being refered to

 

[mycorrhiza]

So I'm just wanting to keep this thread focused on biblical contradiction, however if you want to discusss the authority of the bible I'd be more than happy to do that ..but on another thread please.

Sure! Could you answer what I wrote through a PM?

 

[sojourner]

Again if I were to write out that 2+2=4 and someone copies my work and writes 1+2=3 does that make me wrong?? No the person who copied it made a mistake. In the original manuscripts of the bible you most likely won't find the error. It's not a biblical error its a human one.

But the error appears on a page that's part of the bible. If the text "meant" to say 2+2=4, but in fact says, 1+2=3, then an error is present in that document -- no matter its source.

I don't understand your distinction between "human" error and "Biblical" error. The bible is a human document, written, edited, compiled, translated and codified by human beings. Any "biblical" error is "human" error. The bible didn't write itself. What you're alluding to is the fallacy that the Bible fell out of the sky in some "original" form that was, somehow, "changed over time."

The Bible has been in flux since the beginning. It is what it is -- it says what it says, and it contains factual, editorial and contradictory error.

 

[Vadergirl123]

Just pathetic ...

Where does it say that Mary was a descendant of David? The lineage clearly states that Joseph is the father of Jesus, which indicates relation by blood, not adoptive father.

The geneology account in Luke 3 is Mary's geneaology and it references descent form David in vs 31. What makes you say that it indictaes its by blood?

 

[Vadergirl123]

Sure! Could you answer what I wrote through a PM?

Yes...hold on just a moment

 

[mycorrhiza]

The geneology account in Luke 3 is Mary's geneaology and it references descent form David in vs 31. What makes you say that it indictaes its by blood?

According to all translations of the Bible I've checked, the geneology in Luke 3 is that of Joseph. Could you provide a translation that mentions that it's the geneology of Mary?

That is says son instead of adoptive son, because if the Bible is 100% correct, it should also use the correct terms.

 

[Vadergirl123]

But the error appears on a page that's part of the bible. If the text "meant" to say 2+2=4, but in fact says, 1+2=3, then an error is present in that document -- no matter its source.

I highly doubt you'd find those errors on the original document, and the source DOES matter.

I don't understand your distinction between "human" error and "Biblical" error. The bible is a human document, written, edited, compiled, translated and codified by human beings. Any "biblical" error is "human" error. The bible didn't write itself. What you're alluding to is the fallacy that the Bible fell out of the sky in some "original" form that was, somehow, "changed over time."

Yes it was written by humans...who were inspired by God. Without God inspiring the writing of it then the book woudl've have been one jumbled mess. And when someone copies the wording of it incorrectly then that makes it an error on the copier NOT God or his word.

 

[fantome profane]

I highly doubt you'd find those errors on the original document,

But you don't know that, you can't know that. You don't actually know that the originals had no contradictions. And even assuming copy error you don't know which is the error. For all you know both versions could be wrong.

I have to call fail on this one.

 

[sojourner]

I highly doubt you'd find those errors on the original document, and the source DOES matter.

There is no -- and never was -- "the original document." Do you not understand that the bible is a compilation of oral tradition, some of which was told and retold across more than one culture before they were ever written down? And once they were written down, there were many documents -- not "one bible?" Even the gospels were likely oral stories, told and retold before they were written down. The only "bona fide" writings we have are the epistles.

What "source" do you refer to? There are hundreds of "sources" in the Bible. oral storytellers, writers, editors, redactors, etc.

Yes it was written by humans...who were inspired by God. Without God inspiring the writing of it then the book woudl've have been one jumbled mess. And when someone copies the wording of it incorrectly then that makes it an error on the copier NOT God or his word.

You're presenting us with is a contradiction. You're saying that the Bible was written by human beings, yet you allude to God and God's "word." Are you not aware that "exact wording" isn't an issue in an oral culture (such as produced the texts)? "Jist" is closer to what they were aiming for, and "jist" contains a lot of contradictions -- as in urban myth, like I said.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I highly doubt you'd find those errors on the original document, and the source DOES matter

Yes it was written by humans...who were inspired by God. Without God inspiring the writing of it then the book woudl've have been one jumbled mess. And when someone copies the wording of it incorrectly then that makes it an error on the copier NOT God or his word.

Why does God use inspired writers who happens to makes mistakes in the first place? Incorrect wording hardly comes across as that which is inspired from a divine being.

 

[Vadergirl123]

Why does God use inspired writers who happens to makes mistakes in the first place? Incorrect wording hardly comes across as that which is inspired from a divine being.

The writers of the bible weren't incorrect. The people who copied the bible down made a few errors when they translated it into english and other languages.