Contradictions in the Bible

[rrobs]

How can a book, a non-living thing claim anything?
Your quoted text was created by one living person, but that person was at the time not at all referring to the biblical scripture collection we know now because at that time that specific collection of texts did not exist and on top of that you cannot be sure what in reality the author was referring to.

So the discussion becomes a useless one.

You are in the habit of participating in useless discussions? Your words are non-living things, so how can you claim anything? I must say these forums contain a lot of interesting logic.

 

[Marcion]

You are in the habit of participating in useless discussions? Your words are non-living things, so how can you claim anything? I must say these forums contain a lot of interesting logic.

Yes, to help folks prevent wasting any more of their valuable time.
I don't claim anything, not as some "bible believers" do.
I'm just not into fairy tales when it comes to making important decisions about the direction of one's life. But if people prefer to follow such tales, I will let them be.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

This is so funny.

God gives 'apparent contradictions' to those who are looking for contradictions.

The Bible basically contains proof that God is a hypocrite:

GE 11:7-9 God sows discord.
PR 6:16-19 God hates anyone who sows discord.

They are not looking for God. They are looking for any reason not to follow God. And so God gives it to them.

Specifically because so many people are constantly telling me about Him (God) and are constantly saying how great He is, and how wonderful it is to follow Him, I have, in the past, looked FOR reasons to follow God. Basically, looking for the evidence that verifies all these people's claims about Him. However, when I did go to look, investigate and verify for myself, I found a bunch of stuff like the above blatant contradiction, stories about how God has massacred thousands of humans - basically on a whim, and other stories about Him behaving in ways that preclude my "following" Him based on principle alone.

God gives them the lie. (2 Thess. 2:11). "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."

Would God do that? You bet He would.

But don't you understand? If God is willing to do these types of things, then I am of the opinion that He does not necessarily have humanity's best interests in mind - which makes relationship with Him pretty much like relationship with anyone else on Earth that doesn't have my best interests in mind. Except for one huge, glaring detail - God is nowhere to be found. So, let me ask you - why in the hell would I seek a relationship with a person who not only doesn't have my best interests in mind, but doesn't even appear to be there at any time?

 

[nPeace]

A common conception of the Bible is that it contradicts itself. It sure does look that way. I can't argue that. And yet it claims to be the truth,

John 17:17,

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
​

Well, there is something in the Bible that doesn't even need "interpretation." It's a pretty straight forward declaration. While belief in the statement is optional, it would nonetheless be hard to make it say anything other than that God's word, the Bible, is truth. But how can it be truth if it is full of contradictions?

A more fundamental question though might be, is it really full of contradictions, or do many jump to conclusions before doing any exhaustive study for themselves? I find that question particularly relative considering how many already know it is contradictory without having considered alternatives.

What alternatives?

• To whom is God speaking in any part of the Bible? We commonly say one thing to one person or group, and something totally different to another.
• To what time period do the two "contradictions" belong? It's nothing new; times change. We all know that in our daily life. Well, God can do that also.
• What is the context? You tell your kids not to shout in the restaurant, and then tell them shouting is OK when walking in the forest.
  
• Are we sure two different accounts are talking about the same event? There are times when recognizing that what seems to be the same event are actually two, albeit similar, events. Lot's of similar events in the Bible.
  
• Are we sure the Bible version we use is true to the original Hebrew and Greek texts? It wouldn't be unusual for a scribe to make an honest mistake. It might just be possible that the scribe interjected their own "view" on doctrinal matters. I know of one "contradiction" that vanishes when a comma is removed. The original texts had no punctuation at all. The comma was added by some scribe and is therefore devoid of any diving authority.

There are other considerations, but I've found that those 5 clear up 99% of the apparent contradictions in the Bible. So now I have no trouble seeing that God's word is truth. It just takes a little bit of "getting under the hood" to see how the engine runs.

Great post!
Great points!
Especially these... What is the context? Are we sure two different accounts are talking about the same event?
The other three are just as powerful.
...and reasonable.

 

[nPeace]

Any specifics? Which of the 5 points I brought up amounts to nonsense and why? I was hoping for more of a discussion.

Don't hold your breath.

 

[nPeace]

Don't kid yourself. There are plenty of contradictions in the OT.

All the plant life was destroyed by hail.

Exodus 9:25
23 So Moses raised his walking stick into the air, and the Lord sent hail with thunder and lightning down on the earth. The Lord caused hail to fall all over Egypt. 24 The hail was falling, and lightning was flashing all through it. It was the worst hailstorm that had ever hit Egypt since it had become a nation. 25 The storm destroyed everything in the fields in Egypt. The hail destroyed people, animals, and plants. The hail also broke all the trees in the fields
​

All the plant life was destroyed by locusts.

Exodus 10:13-15
13 So Moses raised his walking stick over the land of Egypt, and the Lord caused a strong wind to blow from the east. The wind blew all that day and night. When morning came, the wind had brought the locusts to the land of Egypt. 14 The locusts flew into the country of Egypt and landed on the ground. There were more locusts than there had ever been in Egypt. And there will never again be that many locusts there. 15 They covered the ground, and the whole country became dark. The locusts ate every plant on the ground and all the fruit in the trees that the hail had not destroyed. There were no leaves left on any of the trees or plants anywhere in Egypt.


​

Saul's daughter was childless.

2 Samuel 6:23
23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.
​

Saul's daughter had five sons.

2 Samuel 21:8
8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:


​

David paid 50 shekels for the property.

2 Samuel 24:24
24 And the king said unto Araunah, Nay; but I will surely buy it of thee at a price: neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the Lord my God of that which doth cost me nothing. So David bought the threshingfloor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver.
​

David paid 600 shekels for the property.

1 Chronicles 21:25
25 So David gave to Ornan for the place six hundred shekels of gold by weight.

.


​

Looks like someone - not just you Skwim - didn't pay any attention to the five points... but which of the opposition will. They can't allow anything that would throw they argument out the door, and prove they are grabbing at straws

 

[nPeace]

Then I suggest you take a look at posts 39 and 40. There are four you'll be able to cite.

.

So you will look at the OP again?

 

[Windwalker]

Infallible in the original but nobody knows what they said.

If there even ever were "originals" for oral traditions.

This is exactly correct. There is no "original" in oral traditions. So the claim it is "infallible in the original" is meaningless. Do they mean to say the original text that someone wrote out hearing one of the performers at one of of the many performances of the oral rendering? Those are never exactly the same. They are based on general gists, along with improvisations to suit the audience.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Does the verse say "God is a liar"?

Would be Ad hominem attack

It just says God lies I think

A subtle difference

Of course it's an interesting observation. Bible God is lying. No problem for me though. After all He allegedly created humans in His Image. I know at least 1 human who has lied, hence it seems correct "God does lie".

But to say "God is a liar" would mean that lying is all God is doing. That of course is not true (assuming God exists).

But there seeem to be quite a few contradictions in the Bible IMHO. Keeps me sharp, not to believe blind.

I disagree. Calling the poster a liar might be an ad hominem attack pointing out that the poster called God a liar only describes his actions. And no liar lies all of the time. When does a person that tells lies become a liar?

But yes, there are countless contradictions in the Bible. That is why there is such a thing as Christian apologetics in the first place. Their job is to apologize for the contradictions in the Bible, though they do not seem to do a very good job of it.

 

[exchemist]

The Bible is inspired, true and in fact infallible in the original texts. We have a pretty good idea what the originals were given the many copies and fragments and the range of things passed down.

Contradictions? No. Much ink has been spilled on this and there are arguably none.

How do we know the bible is "inspired, true and infallible" in the original texts (assuming we can agree on which these were)?

You state this dogmatically, but on what basis?

 

[nPeace]

The excuse does not matter, you said that your God lied.

This is an example, imo, of how one can misunderstand a statement. When he says "God sends", does he mean, "God created it, and then gave it", or does he mean, "You believe it, so God let you have it"?
The later appears to be what was meant, as suggested in this post.

I understand that God allows persons to believe the lie, and removes himself, therefore preventing any chance of that person seeing the light. See here for a more detailed explanation, on that.

 

[exchemist]

I disagree. Calling the poster a liar might be an ad hominem attack pointing out that the poster called God a liar only describes his actions. And no liar lies all of the time. When does a person that tells lies become a liar?

But yes, there are countless contradictions in the Bible. That is why there is such a thing as Christian apologetics in the first place. Their job is to apologize for the contradictions in the Bible, though they do not seem to do a very good job of it.

Er, not "apologise". Apologia means to speak in defence.

Unlike the English word "apologise", it does not convey a sense of regret or admission of error.

 

[nPeace]

Does the verse say "God is a liar"?

Would be Ad hominem attack

It just says God lies I think

A subtle difference

Of course it's an interesting observation. Bible God is lying. No problem for me though. After all He allegedly created humans in His Image. I know at least 1 human who has lied, hence it seems correct "God does lie".

But to say "God is a liar" would mean that lying is all God is doing. That of course is not true (assuming God exists).

But there seeem to be quite a few contradictions in the Bible IMHO. Keeps me sharp, not to believe blind.

Was @Subduction Zone quoting a verse, or was he saying what he believes?
To my knowledge, there is no verse in the Bible that says "God is a liar", or "God lies". Those are the words that men today, say.

 

[Windwalker]

This is an example, imo, of how one can misunderstand a statement. When he says "God sends", does he mean, "God created it, and then gave it", or does he mean, "You believe it, so God let you have it"?
The later appears to be what was meant, as suggested in this post.

That doesn't sound like a very nice God. Not very compassionate, understanding, or forgiving of our human frailties. "You had your chance, now I'm going to let you have it!" He then actively sends something your way to mess you up because you didn't believe something someone told you, for whatever of any possible thousands of reasons that might be behind why they didn't? Does God only love those who get the theology right?

I'm am truly puzzled by some Christians' image of such a hostile, and condemning God. I lean towards one's own personal family upbringing that sees God as either unconditionally loving and nurturing, or a punitive authoritarian you should be afraid of lest they strike you. I have a very different experience and understanding of what love looks like than that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is an example, imo, of how one can misunderstand a statement. When he says "God sends", does he mean, "God created it, and then gave it", or does he mean, "You believe it, so God let you have it"?
The later appears to be what was meant, as suggested in this post.

I understand that God allows persons to believe the lie, and removes himself, therefore preventing any chance of that person seeing the light. See here for a more detailed explanation, on that.

If one purposefully misleads another that is lying and that is exactly what the verse says that God did.

But of course all YEC's in fact all creationists believe that God lied, though they do not tend to understand that fact.

 

[ChristineM]

Right from the start...

Genesis 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
Genesis 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

Genesis 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created. Genesis 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

Genesis 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created. Genesis 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.

Genesis 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created. Genesis 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

Genesis 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time. Genesis 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later

Now i am sure there are apologetics to excuse, circumvent, weazle out of those simple contradictions. But i don't believe any rewrite the bible

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It is sad that so many prefer a torturous web of rationalization over a remarkable human mythos and ethos.

 

[Skwim]

Two different Ahaziah's. Note their different deaths. (2 Kings 9:27-28) (2 Chron. 22:7-9)

And two different Athaliah's. Note (2 Chron. 22:2) "His mothers name also was Athaliah...."

Good-Ole-Rebel

I think not.

2 Kings 8:25-27
25 In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign.
26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.


2 Chronicles 22
22 And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead: for the band of men that came with the Arabians to the camp had slain all the eldest. So Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned. 2 Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.​

I might say, "Nice try," but it isn't. It's a stupid try.

The Bible does contain contradictions, and this is but one of them!

.

 

[Brickjectivity]

John 17:17,

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
Well, there is something in the Bible that doesn't even need "interpretation." It's a pretty straight forward declaration.

That is a complete misinterpretation, particularly since the word 'Word' is supposed to be read in Greek as 'Logos'. The author wants you to read this word as logos, but its convenient to you not to do so. Therefore you like not interpreting it. Your biggest problem is conflating the Bible with the Word of God. Its not a textbook, doesn't give step by step plans. In fact Jesus is quoted to say that he won't teach his disciples everything and that they need to receive the Holy Spirit by which he refers to the Logos or 'Word'. An absurd claim is made by many cults and info spinners over the years which claim the Bible to be a single book called the Word of God. You would do well to ignore that claim and stop trying to make an unlogical argument. I argue that each person if they need wisdom can get it directly from God, and one of the NT writers says so James chapter 1.

In the OP I said it was important to keep the times straight. Some things in the Bible talk about the past, some now, and others in the future. I also mentioned context. Taking those two things into account, it is clear the Corinthians is talking about the future. Notice all the future tense verbs. Why can't we know something in the future we don't know now? That's not very complicated.

James is one big fly in your ointment. James opposes everything you have said about the Bible being the word of God, about needing to get all of our doctrines right, about not accepting that there could exist contradictions between books or within books in the Bible.

James puts this forward that we are the children of the Father of Lights who does not change like shifting shadows. This is right next to where James says that if anyone needs wisdom that we may inquire of God. In other words we don't need to inquire of each other or of books or so he says. Does he not say so? Many people including the Quakers have taken this theme to heart, and they have not had any problems as a result. They've clearly been able to get wisdom from God despite not having the advantages you claim come only from the Bible.

Chapter three James says that the tongue is an evil item which merely poisons and sets things on fire. He upholds the general theme of the NT writers who posit that the time has now come when people no longer will teach one another 'Know the LORD' -- which they extract directly from Jeremiah 31:34 who extracts by his pondering of Deuteronomy 30:6 "...The LORD will circumcise your hearts..." and of Zechariah 14:20 "...on the day 'Holy to the LORD' will be inscribed..." This you oppose by claiming that we must accept the teachings from a book whose canon is selected by men, who do change like shifting shadows and who are not reliable. That is a fallen teaching, likely the work of money making priests and hired shepherds and of those who like to sell books including Bibles. As a Bible seller what argument would you make if your living depended upon its sale?

According to James and to me people must inquire of God through all means available including nature, and Christian theory in the NT has it that the law is now upon our hearts. Inquire by all means and expect an answer by any means. From this many people hold the teaching that we must follow the inner light and that it is how God speaks to us. Some, such as Jesus, refer to this as the conscience. Paul also argues that the gentiles by following conscience show that we are a law unto ourselves, hence dismissing the need that you proclaim for a Bible and a specific set of canon.

 

[nPeace]

That doesn't sound like a very nice God. Not very compassionate, understanding, or forgiving of our human frailties. "You had your chance, now I'm going to let you have it!" He then actively sends something your way to mess you up because you didn't believe something someone told you, for whatever of any possible thousands of reasons that might be behind why they didn't? Does God only love those who get the theology right?

I'm am truly puzzled by some Christians' image of such a hostile, and condemning God. I lean towards one's own personal family upbringing that sees God as either unconditionally loving and nurturing, or a punitive authoritarian you should be afraid of lest they strike you. I have a very different experience and understanding of what love looks like than that.

Did you actually read the scripture?
Would you like to read it again?
Two things strike me... 1) because they did not accept the love of the truth in order that they might be saved. 2) in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness.(2 Thessalonians 2:9-12)

I think that is not only loving, but wise, and just.
If I didn't want my house filled with rodents, I would block any path I felt would gain them access.

From what I read, that's all God is doing. He does not want the new world he creates to be infested with "vermin". It's a strong statement, but those who hate righteousness, are disgusting in God's eyes.
(Revelation 22:15) Outside are the dogs and those who practice spiritism and those who are sexually immoral and the murderers and the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices lying.’

If that's reason to hate God more, don't imagine he will complain. There will always be multitudes who love God, his ways, and his righteous standards.
When he brings his new heavens and earth into one, the myriads of angels will be praising him, along with the multitudes who are rewarded with everlasting life, on a an earth filled with righteousness.

The ones who have complained, would have shown that they chose the side of the chief rebel - Satan the Devil.

If God were not loving, and just, then he would not be this way...
(Ezekiel 18:23, 32)
23 “‘Do I take any pleasure at all in the death of a wicked person?’ declares the Sovereign Lord Jehovah. ‘Do I not prefer that he turn away from his ways and keep living?’
32 “‘I do not take any pleasure in the death of anyone,’ declares the Sovereign Lord Jehovah. ‘So turn back and live.’”
(Ezekiel 33:11)
11 Tell them, ‘“As surely as I am alive,” declares the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, “I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that someone wicked changes his way and keeps living. Turn back, turn back from your bad ways, for why should you die, O house of Israel?”’

I find it interesting that some people only see bad, where scripture is concerned.