Does The Bible Contain Errors And Contradictions

[Shadow Wolf]

God said, He has hidden the truth and blinded the unbelievers, so they will never know the truth. It's evident you're not aware of the conspiracy to destroy Gods Word, and it's no wonder when we consider that the unbelievers are spiritually blind so they can't even see what's happening. It just goes to show that God is right, when He said He blinds the unbeliever

Makes me glad I eventually saw the light amd left such sheltered and naive thinking behind. No criticism is valid. It's just the unbelievers Jehovah has blinded them, and blinded them despite his son having a message he intented for everyone.
Such a healthy father-son relationship.

I agree, your philosophy isn't anything special at all. It's nothing more than mysticism, based on nothing other than fantasy

The same can be said of your religion.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No. The Catholic Church wrote the Bible.

Depends on what you mean by wrote.

 

[Tomef]

I don't know about you, but as a child and adult "because it is" is never satisfactory. There's always a reason beyond "because."

Maybe you took my post too much at face value.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Maybe you took my post too much at face value.

Well, because is in a sense related to the is ought problem and is rather common for invalid and/or unsound reasoning as related to a sort of deduction.

 

[Tomef]

Well, because is in a sense related to the is ought problem and is rather common for invalid and/or unsound reasoning as related to a sort of deduction.

Yeah it was meant as a joke.

 

[Twilight Hue]

That's a lie

There is no other place where the completed Bible comes from. Of course the Talmud having Jewish origins with the New Testament tacked on by the Catholic Church with exclusive possession not available to the lay.

The church took the missing bits and filled in the gaps with its clergy.

First the Latin Vulgate followed by the Wycliffe published in 1382.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's a lie

You can easily google and see that it's not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's a lie

No, not really.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Makes me glad I eventually saw the light amd left such sheltered and naive thinking behind. No criticism is valid. It's just the unbelievers Jehovah has blinded them, and blinded them despite his son having a message he intented for everyone.
Such a healthy father-son relationship.

The biblical God is portrayed as a loving heavenly father, but I think that he is far worse than an abusive parent. Speaking as a former Christian, I think that he is the perfect example of a narcissistic and abusive father who only expresses his warped sense of love to his children whenever they do or say precisely what he wants them to do or say. And his children think that if they don't make him angry, he won't hurt them, but they are unsure because he has a violent temper and is known to lash out when he is angry. So if they disobey him and upset him, then there will be punishment and hell for them to pay. It isn't a healthy relationship founded on unconditional love, trust, and respect, but rather on constant fear and mistrust. It's an abusive and toxic relationship that must be confronted, and those trapped within must be rescued from it. I freed myself, and I've assisted others to free themselves from their belief in God.

The same can be said of your religion.

There is no doubt in my mind that you and I are very fortunate to have freed ourselves from what I consider the entrapment of Christianity.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Countless attempts were made by the rulers in every age to destroy the Holy Scriptures ... It's evident you're not aware of the conspiracy to destroy Gods Word

No need. One can just disregard it.

Anecdote: I moved to the reddest part of a red state in 1998 to avoid California's HMOs and regain some control over my medical practice. I joined a large group and was assigned a consultation room, a private bathroom, and two examination rooms in the clinic, which exam rooms contained Bibles in them.

I had the Bibles removed not because they were Bibles, but because they were books, which don't belong in an examination room. The doctor doesn't want to find his patient reading a book (or on the phone) when he comes into the exam room and telling the doctor that he needs a minute or two to finish the page (or the call). These were mostly conservative Christians, and they knew that I was a Californian atheist, so the news of this spread through the clinic like wildfire (less than an hour before I heard about it) beginning with the nurse (Pansy) who I asked to remove them.

This is why I'm an antitheist and why I object to this religion. It makes people small. It made these people tiny. I was depicted as an enemy of Jesus just as you would do now. Not surprisingly, as soon as my contract expired, I broke free and opened a private office, and did it my way. Exactly ten years later to the day, when my second 5-year office lease expired, we closed the office, sold everything, retired, and moved to Mexico, which was the purpose of moving to the "heartland." What a long, strange trip.

One more anecdote. As I said, I was there in backwater Missouri to avoid HMO micromanagement. My first day making rounds, I'm in the ICU, and a nurse (a different Pansy) asks me, "Dr. *****, what brought you out to rule Missouri?" This is how she pronounced rural, but I didn't know that yet. I answered, "I'm flattered that you think I could rule your state, but I'm only here to regain some control over my own life." Then her face became as confused-looking as mine must have been.

Once I realized what was happening, I poked a little more. There are people who don't pronounce R's normally (watah, flied lice), but she wasn't one of them. She pronounced the first R properly, but there was no second R sound. So I pointed out that it was ROO-rull where came from. She answered, "That's what I said." I explained that it came out ROOL. "Yes, ROOL." So I said, "Say ROO" "Roo" "Now rull" "rull." Now say the one after the other: ROO-rull." "ROOL."

todays rulers are just as hell bent as their previous counterparts to destroy the Bible. They want to ban it everywhere

In the United States, you've got a Supreme Court trying to make its understanding of that Bible commands the law of the land, and a presidential candidate and former president hawking signed copies.

Private opinions are worthless to me

They weren't written for you.

God said, He has hidden the truth and blinded the unbelievers, so they will never know the truth ... we consider that the unbelievers are spiritually blind so they can't even see what's happening. It just goes to show that God is right, when He said He blinds the unbeliever

You're the one wearing the faith-based confirmation bias, the one that doesn't allow you to see the evidence in support of the theory of evolution (another active thread).

And look at how bad your argument is here. You say your god blinds unbelievers, then get upset that they reject your Bible.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, the Epistle of Barnabas is considered to be "non scripture" it was rejected because it's not Gods inspired Word.

But it was in the Bible. In fact, the earliest extant Bible. Did the church make a mistake?

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

And look at how bad your argument is here. You say your god blinds unbelievers, then get upset that they reject your Bible.

In my opinion, the Bible should be rejected because, as evidenced in the following links, it is riddled with contradictions. I don't think anyone should ever base their notion of love, mercy, or justice on it either (see first link). I'd like to conclude that I believe that the savior story of Jesus (as well as other stories about his alleged life) in the Bible aren't credible. FYI, I further explained what I believe about the Bible and the stories of Jesus in this prior post here.

Violence in the Bible: Greatest Hits

101 Clear Contradictions In The Bible

The Bible is Fiction: A Collection of Evidence

Bible Contradictions, Misogyny, Violence, Inaccuracies

 

[Quester]

One important point that needs to be touched on here is that some people believe that
the verse in Matt (24:14) says the "... gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the
world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come."

Without getting into a debate concerning what "all the world" meant to them, let's just cut
to the chase because it seems it was believed that was already done.
Romans 1:8 ... I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is
spoken of throughout the whole world.
Romans 16:25-26 "... according to the revelation of the mystery, kept secret since
the world began, but now has been made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures,
has been made known to all nations ...."

The picture here would imply that – based on what we know today regarding the size
of “the world” – they got it wrong, and “the whole world” didn’t know, hence the
writings that states this “return” was imminent (in THEIR time) – but it really wasn’t. If
that’s the case we have a problem again, because these people were getting this picture
from God, and if God saw a mistake (“the whole world” didn’t know) one would tend to
think God would have corrected it for these “coming later generations” like you, me and
everyone in between – but it never happened.

Colossians 1:5-6 ... of which you heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel,
which has come to you, as it has also in all the world ....
Colossians 1:23 ... the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to
every creature under heaven....

For those who really worry about this study, we now, technically, have what is called
– a legal loophole. (A loophole allows an individual or group to use some gap in the
restrictions or requirements of the law or contract for personal advantage without
technically breaking the law or contract. Loophole )

In other words, if the idea of “the world now knows ” was wrong, if it was a human error,
and it was never corrected by “God” … we cannot be held responsible for this error,
Jesus is still coming, end of story. They were the “leadership” … they got it wrong …
period.

The texts, information all coming from God as source, now would have an identified
major flaw, and since God knows everything, and this text does state this “return and
end of the world” was to have happened 2000 rounded years ago, and it didn’t, it can no
longer be trusted; and as recipients of this mess, we are not responsible.

Like anything regarding constructivism, it’s all about the data, and whatever it says is
fine with me. I just don’t see this as anything else but a grand mistake that has traveled
2000 rounded years to us today, based only on non-verified information, AKA “beliefs.”

 

[Sargonski]

It's based on statistics and personal testimonies of those who set out to discredit the Bible but became devout believers instead

I read the intro .. and find the assertion that folks have not found errors and contradictions in the Bible ... long past the giggle test. Every theological School - every Seminary - all academic thought and Biblical Scholarship from Christian or Jewish Perspective - readily admit and teach that there are errors - contradictions - Edits - Omissions - interpolations - additions anachronisms and too many contradictions to count.

all except the fundamentalist literalists .. OK .. and almost none of those studying this topic have run out and become devout believers on this basis ..

The Bible was not even written to be error free or taken as literalists do .. "every word God Breathed" .. is just nonsense to those who put the Jewish Bible together .. NO one has claimed this nonsense about the Jewish Bible .. The Wisdom literature of Solomon .. proverbs .. the Songs that were sung in the temple .. are not Gods words Breathed .. these are words of Wisdom from a Wise King .. Songs written for the Temple ..by people .. just like the songs we sing in Church Today .. No Jew tells you these were written by God. This is pure nonsense .. this is not what the people who wrote the song believed .. not what the Jews who collected these songs at a later date believed .. not what the people who put these songs .. historical chronicals .. and a host of other things into the Jewish Bible Believed ?

Sure .. certain parts are believed to be "Word of God" -- but not the whole book Brother Charles .

Now -- you wished for "Contradiction" -- God's word say one thing .. then say the complete opposite. Assuming the whole book is God Breathed ... and Breathed by the Same God. .. you see .. if you read the Bible Properly .. through the eyes of the folks who wrote the darn book .. rather than your own perspected which is Jaded by Ha Satan aka the man made dogma of his minions .. there is no contradition.. one God say one thing .. another God say another .. because those in the Bible .. from Abe through the end of the Israelites believe in the existence of many Gods.

Now -- you claim you know which command in the Bible is from God -- such that you can then follow this command .. and thus do right in the eyes of the Lord.. ands .. in the words of the prophets .. be put right with God.

I claim .. firstly that you do not know which God of the Bible you follow .. never mind follow the commands of that God due to your inability to choose which of the following commands is from your God .. and the name/identity of that God (Identity - if you don't know the name .. some other descriptor such as God of Jesus "The FAther" -- something allowing a distinction between various Gods)

We will not have a problem with not knowing the name as the name of the God giving the command is known .. even if not known to you.

So in the case of Sin against the Jealous God -- which command do we follow .... and what is the name of that God.

1) Kill the Child for the Sins of the Father .. or
2) Do not kill the Child for the Sins of the Father - Let each Person be punished for his own sin

Which command will you follow .. and what is the name of the God that has issued that command. ? .. Obviously you can not follow both commands .. due to the contradiction.

 

[rocala]

I don't want to be the next JFK, by exposing the conspirators

Well I guess there is no point in following this thread any more. Do not worry about assassins it is the men in white coats that may be your problem.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Depends on what you mean by wrote.

According to the Christian theological and apologetic websites I read online, the Bible was authored over a period of 1,500 years by forty men, from three continents, and in three languages: Hebrew, Koine Greek, and Aramaic. And that's not to mention the number of times the Bible has been translated into different languages. I searched online to find out how many English versions of the Bible are now in print, and the results ranged in the hundreds (see the search results here). With this in mind, which Bible is accurate? Is it the Catholic Bible, with 73 books, the Greek Orthodox Bible, with 79 books, or one of the Protestant Bibles, with 66 books? If it's a Protestant Bible, which version is most accurate? Is it the KJV or one of the hundred other English versions?

Personally, I think that we should take whatever is written in the Bible with a grain of salt. In my opinion, it is riddled with contradictions, such as the verse that claims God never changes. Numbers 23:19 states, "God is not a man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said it, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?" However, other verses state that God changes his mind and relents from causing disaster to punish people for their sins (Jeremiah 18:5–10; Jeremiah 26:3; Joel 2:13–14; Jonah 3:9; Jonah 4:2). In my opinion, these verses contradict Numbers 23:19.

Amos 7:3 "The Lord changed His mind about this. "It shall not be," said the LORD.

Amos 7:6 "The Lord changed His mind about this. "This too shall not be," said the Lord God.

Exodus 32:14 "So the Lord changed His mind about the harm that He said He would do to His people."

 

[PearlSeeker]

It's no different today, many sceptics set out to debunk the Bible and end up becoming believers instead. The vast majority converted to Christianity after finding that all 66 books are reliable, historical documents.

So what? People watch YT videos and convert to flat earth. This doesn't make it true.

And people loose their faith in the Bible after studying it more thoroughly. My personal experience.

But the main reason so many became believers is due to the 356 prophecies which were fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

It doesn't matter how many prophecies he fulfilled. If he hasn't fulfilled all the requirements he can't be the Messiah. Being more popular than other Messiah claimants is not enough.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's based on statistics and personal testimonies of those who set out to discredit the Bible but became devout believers instead

The one example of "statistics" that you gave was terribly flawed. And your other example was a joke. You used Lee Strobel of all people. You need something a lot stronger than that.

Strobel did something that an atheist, especially one that was not a scholar, would never do. He set out to "disprove Jesus". Well that is just stupid. First off he ignored who had the burden of proof. Second he did not study any of the history or language of the time so he went to a fight that was not his to fight totally unarmed. There is no wonder that he failed. He would get whipped in a debate by actual scholars such as Richard Carrier or Barth Ehrman.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

And people loose their faith in the Bible after studying it more thoroughly. My personal experience.

This was my personal experience as well.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

The one example of "statistics" that you gave was terribly flawed. And your other example was a joke. You used Lee Strobel of all people. You need something a lot stronger than that.

Strobel did something that an atheist, especially one that was not a scholar, would never do. He set out to "disprove Jesus". Well that is just stupid. First off he ignored who had the burden of proof. Second he did not study any of the history or language of the time so he went to a fight that was not his to fight totally unarmed. There is no wonder that he failed. He would get whipped in a debate by actual scholars such as Richard Carrier or Barth Ehrman.

Lee Stobel? Yeah, I don't think he is a good example either.

In my opinion, his assessment of Christianity is equivalent to Ray Comfort's ("banana man") assessment of evolution.