Contradictions in the Bible

[exchemist]

To what does it refer? Where do we find it? If I've been fooled all these years, I'd like to find out now.

Sorry, but that doesn't impress me. Paul went to the best "seminary" of his day and ended up calling it dung (Phil 3:4-8).

I've often wondered why someone would spend years of study in something they don't believe. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Just another thing I don't understand.

You have yet to explain where in the bible it claims to be the word of God. Does the bible actually make this claim? Or is it just something you have been told?

 

[metis]

Theologians tend to more use the word "variations" than "contradictions" as one can't always tell if two items are in reality contradictory because there may be a thread that ultimately connects them.

Also, the only people who care about "contradictions" are those who believe in scriptural inerrancy, which is more of a recent invention only a couple of centuries old.

 

[nPeace]

The ""We don't have the original documents" argument. That is of course grasping at straws which only invalidates the claim that the Bible is perfect or the "word of God" if you must. The so called originals are long gone if they ever existed since a lot of the Bible is based upon oral tradition.

You cannot have it both ways.

I don't know what you are trying to say.
I don't recall anyone saying the Bible is perfect. I certainly didn't.
However, there were always records kept, that were, written down, and copies were always made. Just read the Bible. It's there.
Yes the originals are long gone, and we have evidence they existed, in the copies.
You don't have to believe them. That's your choice, is it not, and I am glad for that. That's the whole purpose of free choice / will.
I am sure God's new world will be made up of only those whom God wants in it. His word says, that won't be the ones who reject truth.

 

[Windwalker]

To what does it refer? Where do we find it? If I've been fooled all these years, I'd like to find out now.

How could Jesus have been talking about the Bible, when the Bible you call "God's word", was not in existence for another 300 years yet?

Where do we find God's word, you ask?

"The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.
Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world."

~ Psalm 19

Also, on the tablets of the heart, not words of ink and paper. God's word, is the world itself. ~ Ro. 1:20

 

[stvdv]

If God sends delusion he is the cause of it. He is perpetuating a lie and he cannot even use the claim of ignorance that some of our creationists do when caught using a lying source. If God is at all omniscient that makes that act spreading falsehoods or ling.

God created everything they claim. That already makes God responsible for everything ... good and bad we experience. Just blame God.
If I created something or do something they hold me accountable. So God created something means we can hold Him accountable

That's what I learned in India from the Scriptures, and that makes sense to me. Just praise/blame God for all

 

[Windwalker]

I am sure God's new world will be made up of only those whom God wants in it.

That sounds like what you want, only those you want, those who look like yourself. What if God wants everyone in there? Then what? Will you be hurt that God let "those people" in?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know what you are trying to say.
I don't recall anyone saying the Bible is perfect. I certainly didn't.
However, there were always records kept, that were, written down, and copies were always made. Just read the Bible. It's there.
Yes the originals are long gone, and we have evidence they existed, in the copies.
You don't have to believe them. That's your choice, is it not, and I am glad for that. That's the whole purpose of free choice / will.
I am sure God's new world will be made up of only those whom God wants in it. His word says, that won't be the ones who reject truth.

You may not have, but others try to make that claim. And no, you can't trust a book of myths for an accurate account of itself. Moses after all was mythical. A mythical person cannot write about himself.

And you just made a common mistake. The Bible never claims to be the word of God. At best it only says that undefined "scripture" is "God breathed". That is as close as it comes to making that claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

God created everything they claim. That already makes God responsible for everything ... good and bad we experience. Just blame God.
If I created something or do something they hold me accountable. So God created something means we can hold Him accountable

That's what I learned in India from the Scriptures, and that makes sense to me. Just praise/blame God for all

I agree, but Christians need a fall guy that can take the blame. And should I have said "some Christians". Those defending the accuracy of the Bible tend to be that sort of Christian.

 

[nPeace]

Good question. How are you going to answer it?

If you don't know that different manuscripts, or differences in manuscripts were taken into consideration then everything in the Bible is in question---perhaps one or more of these manuscripts resolved a very important doctrinal issue---and therefore makes the book unreliable.

If you know for a fact that all of them were taken into consideration then you're going to have to rely on the scholars being correct in their interpretations, including the contradictions they came across, in which case the contradictions quash any kind of reliability.

Because the Bible cannot be correct about both, (either 2 Kings 8:25-27 or 2 Chronicles 22 is wrong) it demonstrates its fallibility and announces: The Bible IS fallible! And if it can be fallible in one place it can be fallible in another, and another, and another, and . . . .

But, of course, knowing how badly Christians need the entire Bible to be true they simply shove such problematic contradictions into the far recesses of their mind to forget about them. It's little different than cherry picking the Bible so as to conform to one's theology. Nice, but hardly honest, but don't feel alone, it's a lie a lot of Christians have to tell themselves.

.

I don't think you understand.
If translators did not carefully consider the different manuscripts, then you are at #5.
If translators did consider the manuscripts, then there is no problem, because if only one, or two said age 42, then it is easy to see how #5 would apply.

So really, it would still be, that opponents are overlooking or refusing to consider alternatives against their argument.

For me personally, I see these as distractions, and a complete waste of time. Why? Because no one has shown me how the overall message contradicts. All they have done, is nit pick things to complain about... which we can argue into the next generation, and no one changes their mind... imo.

 

[Audie]

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?

BECAUSE, if it is not, then everything will
spin seemingly out of control.

 

[rrobs]

@Phaedrus

Context has nothing to do at all with some of the clear contradictions. For example, in Matthew 27, Jesus does not answer any of Pilate's questions, and in John 18, he answers all of them. He either answered, or he didn't -- nobody can do both at once.

Forgive me for not addressing all of your points, but let's see how this one claim of yours might be handled.

Jesus did in fact answer at least one of Pilate's questions (Matt 27:11). Matthew then says the Jewish elders asked him a question and Jesus didn't answer. Pilate then asked him at least one more question which Jesus did not answer.

To avoid a contradiction we can do this: John simply gave more details than Matthew 27:11. Put John and Matthe 17:11 together to get a clear picture of that phase of Jesus' examination. John, on the other hand, doesn't mention Jesus' silence to the elder's questions, nor his silence to Pilate's further questions after the elder's examination. Isn't it OK for one account of an event to give more or less detail than another? We see that all the time in the news.

Does that work for you? If not, why not?

 

[Audie]

Forgive me for not addressing all of your points, but let's see how this one claim of yours might be handled.

Jesus did in fact answer at least one of Pilate's questions (Matt 27:11). Matthew then says the Jewish elders asked him a question and Jesus didn't answer. Pilate then asked him at least one more question which Jesus did not answer.

To avoid a contradiction we can do this: John simply gave more details than Matthew 27:11. Put John and Matthe 17:11 together to get a clear picture of that phase of Jesus' examination. John, on the other hand, doesn't mention Jesus' silence to the elder's questions, nor his silence to Pilate's further questions after the elder's examination. Isn't it OK for one account of an event to give more or less detail than another? We see that all the time in the news.

Does that work for you? If not, why not?

"according to the story, as told much later"

 

[rrobs]

You have yet to explain where in the bible it claims to be the word of God. Does the bible actually make this claim? Or is it just something you have been told?

Maybe you are right. Where do we find the word of God?

 

[nPeace]

So this makes God emotionally angry and makes him want to destroy them, so he sends deceptions their way in order to mess with them. That's pretty much what I summarized, wasn't it?


So Christ sees other human beings as rodents? Ironic thing, the Nazi's saw the Jews as rodents. Isn't that something? So very, dehumanizing. So very un-Christ like. Wouldn't you say?

You see, I don't even see my enemies that way. Jesus taught us to love our enemies, not call them rodents. Didn't he?


It sounds to me like you are the one who sees other as "vermin", and "disgusting". You seem so sure this is how God sees the world. Like you do. But God is Love. And none of what you said fits within the character and nature of that God of Infinite Love. Hatred has no place in God.


There will always be those who love an image of God that hates their fellow man, like they do. But is that really God, or is it their own hatred and own darkness that they really love? God is about forgiveness, not spiteful hatred and vengeance.


Sounds to me like there's very little tolerance with this image of God you extol. Sounds like what you might find in the home an abusive father who smacks his children around for "complaining" - your words. My home life was absolutely nothing like that. My parents were genuinely loving, compassionate, and forgiving.

That's how I experience God. Not this God of Fear you present. That's just an image of fear, like a threatening parent figure who will smack you around if you don't sit just right, or obey his every word. He may call that love, but it is not. That child will grow up with a broken image of what love is, and then see God that way.


There is a difference between someone suffering the human consequences for their human actions, and God deliberating attacking them and killing them because they didn't live up to his expectations. How do you read the above?

I don't recall if I asked you if you believe the Bible. All of what I was saying, is in the Bible, except the parts you misinterpreted of course. I'm sorry you read every sentence as me saying, "The Bible says..." LOL Where did I say Christ views people as rodents? I never did. Goats yes, but that's still figurative. Dogs, and pigs, yes, but still figurative. LOL

 

[exchemist]

Maybe you are right. Where do we find the word of God?

I'm not making any assertion, I'm asking you a question. Do you think the bible itself claims it is the word of God? If not, from where do you get the idea that it is?

 

[rrobs]

"according to the story, as told much later"

Good point, but don't we believe a lot of things based on nothing more than a later told story? George Washington's life comes to mind.

 

[stvdv]

I agree, but Christians need a fall guy that can take the blame. And should I have said "some Christians". Those defending the accuracy of the Bible tend to be that sort of Christian.

Obvious those need a fall guy, as they need to create a lot of "dubious" (to put it mildly) interpretations IN HIS NAME to "defend" Bible, God, Jesus to be infallible.

Without their fall guy they are lost, I can really see that now. All their sin (their words not mine), it must be horror. And then Devil and Hell added to that.

Life on earth seems to be Hell for them, being sinners, hence their focus on the afterlife.

 

[rrobs]

I'm not making any assertion, I'm asking you a question. Do you think the bible itself claims it is the word of God? If not, from where do you get the idea that it is?

I freely admitted you might be right. I hoped you might help me find the right answer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good point, but don't we believe a lot of things based on nothing more than a later told story? George Washington's life comes to mind.

And some of those beliefs can change. We now know that some of the tales of George Washington are mythical (the cherry tree for example) just was we know that some of the tales in the Bible are mythical (Noah and his magic boat for example).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm not making any assertion, I'm asking you a question. Do you think the bible itself claims it is the word of God? If not, from where do you get the idea that it is?

I freely admitted you might be right. I hoped you might help me find the right answer.

A problem with this line of inquiry is that any time one starts talking about "the Bible" as one thing, rather than a number of things accreted over time, one has skewed the question.