Does the Bible Contradict Itself ?

[shunyadragon]

And the King David story?

The only thing that is confirmed is the existence of King David, and not the story.

quote]
And life coming out of the sea story? [/quote]

Individual parallels, which are common in ancient cultures, in the text do not justify the mythology of Genesis and the historical problems with exodus.

I ought to compile a list of so-called "stories" that are now established history of the bible age.

The Bible is set in history, therefore historical facts and people in the Bible does not lead to the conclusion that the Bible is historically accurate. This is the case for many ancient texts.

Compile away, there will be still a severe problem of the impossible historicity of Noah's Ark and the flood.

 

[PruePhillip]

The only thing that is confirmed is the existence of King David, and not the story.

quote]
And life coming out of the sea story?

Individual parallels, which are common in ancient cultures, in the text do not justify the mythology of Genesis and the historical problems with exodus.



The Bible is set in history, therefore historical facts and people in the Bible does not lead to the conclusion that the Bible is historically accurate. This is the case for many ancient texts.

Compile away, there will be still a severe problem of the impossible historicity of Noah's Ark and the flood.[/QUOTE]

Well, consider this that for many there was no such personage as King David.
And Jerusalem was some country town of no significance.
And there was no such thing as a Jewish/Hebrew identity.
And Jewish meant religion, not something written in DNA.
And the Torah was written in Babylonian times with no knowledge of Bronze Age culture.
All these are wrong.

And out of the fog of history has emerged many of the towns and figures we read of in the Gospels too.

We also know that camels were domesticated long before Abraham. Skeptics suggested the Abraham story was made up because Genesis mentions the camel trains. Try changing the Wikipedia entry on domesticated camels - you won't get far.

 

[shunyadragon]

Many who? Cite contemporary sources to back up your claims. Biblical Archaeology is good magazine that describes the evidence reasonably objectively and does not support your following assertions,

Well, consider this that for many there was no such personage as King David.

Note based on the present archaelogical evidence. It is accepted that King David was a historical person.

And Jerusalem was some country town of no significance.

Different times the importance of Jerusalem shifted. Again site your sources, based on current archaeology.

And there was no such thing as a Jewish/Hebrew identity. And Jewish meant religion, not something written in DNA.

Your conclusion here is not based on known archaeology. Both have relevance in the present knowledge of the Hebrews. DNA does confirm that the Hebrews were related to Canaanites and Ugarits, and the archaeology confirms that they were a Canaanite tribe in the Hills of Judah.

And the Torah was written in Babylonian times with no knowledge of Bronze Age culture.

The present claim is that the Torah was not necessarily written in Babylonia, but part or all the Torah may be written in exile in its present form.There were two Hebrew communities during the exile one in Palestine, and one in exile.

By the evidence the Torah was first written compiled, edited between about ~700-500 BCE. Please provide evidence if you disagree. The Hebrew language as it is in the Torah did not exist before this. The only known script is a few primitive Canaanite/Hebrew text dating between ~1200-700 BCE.

All these are wrong.

Your assertions are vague, incorrect and without references.

And out of the fog of history has emerged many of the towns and figures we read of in the Gospels too.

Not evidence of historical accuracy of the Torah.

We also know that camels were domesticated long before Abraham. Skeptics suggested the Abraham story was made up because Genesis mentions the camel trains. Try changing the Wikipedia entry on domesticated camels - you won't get far.

The existence nor none existence of domesticated camels does not have anything to do with the historicity of the text of the Pentateuch.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I like this, re piercing of the Messiah "the context of Zechariah 12 is of an invading army, not a Messianic prophecy of Jesus."
The context of prophecy is USUALLY NOT about the Messiah. The prophecy occurs in all sorts of situational texts. That proves nothing. And David also spoke of the piercing of the Messiah. And to those Jews who don't believe in the Messiah as the suffering Redeemer and Lamb of God, there's the Messianic king ruling the nations - "and they shall see Him whom they pierced."
As such I find this site slightly trashy, and guilty of the very things it accuses others of doing.

Some who claim the New Testament authors crafted a story to soak up all the Messianic prophecies about Christ (and that's a real Get Out of Jail card, isn't it?) cannot explain how these prophecies state that the Jews will not receive their Messiah, and they will go into exile and slavery. That's powerful and consistent prophecy throughout the bible. And it's usually ignored those who testify these prophecies are false.

Yes, RationalWiki can be slightly trashy, but they are right in this instance. Christians tend to quote mine their own holy book. That should be an act of blasphemy. And the problem is that Jesus does not meet the messianic prophecies so it is thought that the writers of the Old Testament, who were OT scholars in their own right, crafted their stories by quote mining.

 

[Subduction Zone]

RationalWiki is indeed trashy. It's a site where desperate people go.

Wrong again. When one is debating with desperate people, those that are not honest enough to admit that the Tyre prophesy failed for example, it is a useful sight. It is a bit like fighting fire with fire. If Christians are going to be lazy and not debate properly why should they expect their opponents to put any thought into refuting the nonsense that they post.

Try to use valid arguments and you will see better quality responses. As it is "trashy" as the site is it refutes the nonsense that has been posted here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Many who? Cite contemporary sources to back up your claims. Biblical Archaeology is good magazine that describes the evidence reasonably objectively and does not support your following assertions,



Note based on the present archaelogical evidence. It is accepted that King David was a historical person.



Different times the importance of Jerusalem shifted. Again site your sources, based on current archaeology.



Your conclusion here is not based on known archaeology. Both have relevance in the present knowledge of the Hebrews.



By the evidence the Torah was first written compiled, edited between about ~700-500 BCE. Please provide evidence if you disagree. The Hebrew language as it is in the Torah did not exist before this. The only known script is a few primitive Canaanite/Hebrew text dating between ~1200-700 BCE.



Your assertions are vague, incorrect and without references.



Not evidence of historical accuracy of the Torah.



The existence nor none existence of domesticated camels does not have anything to do with the historicity of the text of the Pentateuch.

One problem that I have with some Bible believers is that they will think that just because the Bible is partially right, that there probably was a Kind David, that that somehow lends credibility to the rest of it. The example of Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter may be a bit extreme, but on the other hand the example of George Washington and the cherry tree, and his wooden teeth bot underplay what probably happened in the Bible in comparison.

 

[shunyadragon]

One problem that I have with some Bible believers is that they will think that just because the Bible is partially right, that there probably was a Kind David, that that somehow lends credibility to the rest of it. The example of Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter may be a bit extreme, but on the other hand the example of George Washington and the cherry tree, and his wooden teeth bot underplay what probably happened in the Bible in comparison.

They have found archaeological evidence for a person referred to as 'King David,' but you cannot extrapolite that the whole story of King David in the Bible is true. The Bible is set in history and therefore individual reference of historical persons, events and places are accepted, but not necessarily historical based on the evidence.

For example: The stories of the hanging gardens of Babylon were a problem, because no evidence could be found that the hanging gardens existed related to Babylon. The hanging gardens have been found constructed 300 miles to the north of Babylon in Nineveh, the capital of the rival Assyrian empire.

 

[PruePhillip]

Yes, RationalWiki can be slightly trashy, but they are right in this instance. Christians tend to quote mine their own holy book. That should be an act of blasphemy. And the problem is that Jesus does not meet the messianic prophecies so it is thought that the writers of the Old Testament, who were OT scholars in their own right, crafted their stories by quote mining.

You need to be specific. I can't reply the generalizations.
Perhaps you can begin by stating what Messianic prophecies
Jesus didn't follow through upon, and what one He actually did.

 

[PruePhillip]

They have found archaeological evidence for a person referred to as 'King David,' but you cannot extrapolite that the whole story of King David in the Bible is true. The Bible is set in history and therefore individual reference of historical persons, events and places are accepted, but not necessarily historical based on the evidence.

For example: The stories of the hanging gardens of Babylon were a problem, because no evidence could be found that the hanging gardens existed related to Babylon. The hanging gardens have been found constructed 300 miles to the north of Babylon in Nineveh, the capital of the rival Assyrian empire.

Yes, there is historicity in the bible. It was understood in Greek/Roman times there wasn't really a Zeus upon Mt Olympus. These traditions said little about the origin of the world or pretended to foretell the future. These myths made no sweeping claim about history or the true story of the Greeks or Romans, past, present or future.
Not so with the bible.
The mistake people make is to look at where the bible is similar to other religious texts, and ignore where it is different.
The bible deals with human universality, the fall of man, the moral order before God (as opposed to morals for morals sake) and it shows, through the Jewish people, a universally understood metaphor for God's people - their blessing, cursing, judgment, city of God, tiny nation amongst the nations, brought out of bondage, promises etc..

 

[Subduction Zone]

You need to be specific. I can't reply the generalizations.
Perhaps you can begin by stating what Messianic prophecies
Jesus didn't follow through upon, and what one He actually did.

The New Testament shows heavy signs of being doctored, some "prophecies" appear to be fulfilled. But then the self contradictions show them not to be. The two conflicting lines of descent for example. The only unjustified excuse that is given is that one is the line of Joseph and the other of Mary when neither one claims to be Mary's line and both the lines in Matthew and Luke have been claimed to represent her line of descent. And then there are the non-prophesies such as that Jesus would be a "Nazarene". Or that he would come out of Egypt. But if you want to get into the specifics it is best to read it from a Jewish perspective:

http://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge...-and-the-jewish-response-to-christian-claims/

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, there is historicity in the bible. It was understood in Greek/Roman times there wasn't really a Zeus upon Mt Olympus. These traditions said little about the origin of the world or pretended to foretell the future. These myths made no sweeping claim about history or the true story of the Greeks or Romans, past, present or future.
Not so with the bible.
The mistake people make is to look at where the bible is similar to other religious texts, and ignore where it is different.
The bible deals with human universality, the fall of man, the moral order before God (as opposed to morals for morals sake) and it shows, through the Jewish people, a universally understood metaphor for God's people - their blessing, cursing, judgment, city of God, tiny nation amongst the nations, brought out of bondage, promises etc..

Where do you think that those that disagree with the Christian interpretation do that? What they do quite often is to show where Christianity is similar to other religions. That does not mean that they are ignoring where they are different. That there are differences is so obvious that there really is no need to mention those differences. What happens is that Christians claims that their stories are unique fail when compared to other religions. The roots of many Christian and Jewish stories can be found when they are compared to older mythologies. That is all that people are doing.

 

[nPeace]

Wrong again. When one is debating with desperate people, those that are not honest enough to admit that the Tyre prophesy failed for example, it is a useful sight. It is a bit like fighting fire with fire. If Christians are going to be lazy and not debate properly why should they expect their opponents to put any thought into refuting the nonsense that they post.

Try to use valid arguments and you will see better quality responses. As it is "trashy" as the site is it refutes the nonsense that has been posted here.

Wrong again. When one is debating with desperate people, those that are not honest enough to admit that the Tyre prophesy failed for example, it is a useful sight. It is a bit like fighting fire with fire. If Christians are going to be lazy and not debate properly why should they expect their opponents to put any thought into refuting the nonsense that they post.

Try to use valid arguments and you will see better quality responses. As it is "trashy" as the site is it refutes the nonsense that has been posted here.

Yes, RationalWiki can be slightly trashy, but they are right in this instance.

RationalWiki is indeed trashy. It's a site where desperate people go.

Wrong again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see that you can quote, to bad that you can't understand.

Remember, when you don't understand the proper thing to do is to ask questions politely and properly. You failed in your earlier debates about Tyre, you have no grounds for complaint about RationalWiki as a result.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, there is historicity in the bible. It was understood in Greek/Roman times there wasn't really a Zeus upon Mt Olympus. These traditions said little about the origin of the world or pretended to foretell the future. These myths made no sweeping claim about history or the true story of the Greeks or Romans, past, present or future.
Not so with the bible.

The mistake people make is to look at where the bible is similar to other religious texts, and ignore where it is different.

This does not address the fact that the Bible in particular the Torah is NOT historically accurate. The Bible is indeed similar to other religious texts, particularly the older texts of Babylonian, Sumerian, Canaanite and Ugarit cultures, and the uniqueness only rests in those that believe.

The bible deals with human universality, the fall of man, the moral order before God (as opposed to morals for morals sake) and it shows, through the Jewish people, a universally understood metaphor for God's people - their blessing, cursing, judgment, city of God, tiny nation amongst the nations, brought out of bondage, promises etc..

This represents an assumption of belief, and not an unbiased assessment of the nature of the Bible in history.

 

[PruePhillip]

The New Testament shows heavy signs of being doctored, some "prophecies" appear to be fulfilled. But then the self contradictions show them not to be. The two conflicting lines of descent for example. The only unjustified excuse that is given is that one is the line of Joseph and the other of Mary when neither one claims to be Mary's line and both the lines in Matthew and Luke have been claimed to represent her line of descent. And then there are the non-prophesies such as that Jesus would be a "Nazarene". Or that he would come out of Egypt. But if you want to get into the specifics it is best to read it from a Jewish perspective:

http://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge...-and-the-jewish-response-to-christian-claims/

Quote "He shall be called a Nazarene" ?
Mathew is quoting from a document which hasn't survived to this day. If he quoted this in the First Century and there was no such document then others would have challenged him.
Can't comment on the lineage as I have never looked into it - probably paternal and maternal.
We are told that Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt. This was a dependable route for dissidents of Herod. They could have gone to Alexandria, a vital Jewish hub. If I recall this was the age of Cleopatra - an enemy of Herod.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Quote "He shall be called a Nazarene" ?
Mathew is quoting from a document which hasn't survived to this day. If he quoted this in the First Century and there was no such document then others would have challenged him.
Can't comment on the lineage as I have never looked into it - probably paternal and maternal.
We are told that Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt. This was a dependable route for dissidents of Herod. They could have gone to Alexandria, a vital Jewish hub. If I recall this was the age of Cleopatra - an enemy of Herod.

The entire nativity is made up out of whole clothe, starting with a non-prophecy based upon a Greek mistranslation. Please note that Matthew said the Nazarene claim was in response to a prophecy, yet that prophecy does not seem to be the case. Either way it amounts to a contradiction since for the Bible to be the "word of God" a major loss automatically refutes that claim.

The slaughter of the innocents appeared to have never happened. This would rank right up with other horrible acts of Herod that were recorded, yet for some reason, apart from the mythical source, there is no such story. Making lame excuses is not refuting contradictions.

 

[PruePhillip]

This does not address the fact that the Bible in particular the Torah is NOT historically accurate. The Bible is indeed similar to other religious texts, particularly the older texts of Babylonian, Sumerian, Canaanite and Ugarit cultures, and the uniqueness only rests in those that believe.



This represents an assumption of belief, and not an unbiased assessment of the nature of the Bible in history.

Early texts in Genesis do not come from Hebrew sources.
Some historic sources might be common to the Middle East but (?) but its message is not like that of other nations.
IMO the two greatest prophecies concern
1 - the Messiah
2 - the fate of the Jewish people.
The latter is still being played out today. Jesus spoke of Jerusalem being tramped under the feet of the Gentiles until the Gentiles time is finished. Meaning the Jews would lose their homeland, but not forever. And that the Gentiles who received the Gospel will one day treat it like the Jews did.
And that's amazing in our sight, no?

 

[nPeace]

@shunyadragon
I agree we are all trying to determine what is trustworthy, and it does take a lot of digging. So it's an ongoing process to be as sure as sure can be.
However, there are collectively many reasons imo, why the Bible seems more trustworthy.
I mentioned some of those, and I understand the challenges you made.

With regard to Chronology though, I think there are reasonably sound reasons for accepting the Bible's Chronology.
Apart from the fact that the evidence I have seen suggest that I can trust it, I find unlike secular Chronology, the Bible's Chronology has a continuous flow that can be traced from beginning to end.

There are problems apparently, with secular Chronology.
For one thing it's not continual, as is the case with the Bible.
Secondly, there is definitive proof, that the records of ancient nations are not always trustworthy, and their Chronology cannot always verified to be accurate.

 

[PruePhillip]

The entire nativity is made up out of whole clothe, starting with a non-prophecy based upon a Greek mistranslation. Please note that Matthew said the Nazarene claim was in response to a prophecy, yet that prophecy does not seem to be the case. Either way it amounts to a contradiction since for the Bible to be the "word of God" a major loss automatically refutes that claim.

The slaughter of the innocents appeared to have never happened. This would rank right up with other horrible acts of Herod that were recorded, yet for some reason, apart from the mythical source, there is no such story. Making lame excuses is not refuting contradictions.

People have it both ways - they want to read the nativity into the Old Testament and claim not to find it. It's in the New Testament, from different authors, but these books are somehow not valid.
Other things found in the Old Testament are simply not believed, ie the lowly Messiah who would come to a people who do not receive him, and who died for a message which would be embraced (for a while) by the Gentiles.

I like where it speaks of the fall of the churches in Revelation, no more the candle, no more the bride and bridegroom - but a cage of every hateful bird.
This church is not found in the 1st Century - the text wasn't understood by people back then. I take the hateful bird to be the new breed of social activist who use the church for their platform of anti-everything causes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

People have it both ways - they want to read the nativity into the Old Testament and claim not to find it. It's in the New Testament, from different authors, but these books are somehow not valid.
Other things found in the Old Testament are simply not believed, ie the lowly Messiah who would come to a people who do not receive him, and who died for a message which would be embraced (for a while) by the Gentiles.

I like where it speaks of the fall of the churches in Revelation, no more the candle, no more the bride and bridegroom - but a cage of every hateful bird.
This church is not found in the 1st Century - the text wasn't understood by people back then. I take the hateful bird to be the new breed of social activist who use the church for their platform of anti-everything causes.

But it is not in there. Quote mining is a form of lying. And excessively vague verses fail automatically as prophesies. One can go shopping for "fulfillment" and find it several times over.