Is it possible that Christianity is true, yet the Bible contains errors?

[jimb]

Note:

• As with Hebrew, Aramaic has a couple of consonants that can serve as vowels.
• My Bible has no books originally written in Koine Greek.

If all you have is the Old Testament, a.k.a., the Jewish Bible, that is true.

 

[jimb]

Two out of three is not bad. I rather like the heavily annotated NET.

Isaiah 7:14 NRSVue​

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son ...​

​

Isaiah 7:14 NIV​

Therefore the Lord himself will give you[a] a sign: The virgin[b] will conceive and give birth to a son ...​

Leaving aside the virgin versus jungfrau issue, note the difference between "is with child" and "will conceive."

Notice the differences in tenses. "The Lord himself will give you a sign. [future] Look, the young woman is with child..." [present] NRSVue
"Therefore the Lord himself will give you [future] a sign: The virgin will conceive [future] and give birth to a son..." NIV
"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you [future] a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive [future], and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel"
KJV
"For this reason the Lord himself will give you a confirming sign.[future] Look, this young woman is about to conceive [present continuous?] and will give birth to a son. [future] You, young woman, will name him Immanuel. [future] NET

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Notice the differences in tenses. "The Lord himself will give you a sign. [future] Look, the young woman is with child..." [present] NRSVue
"Therefore the Lord himself will give you [future] a sign: The virgin will conceive [future] and give birth to a son..." NIV
"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you [future] a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive [future], and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel"
KJV
"For this reason the Lord himself will give you a confirming sign.[future] Look, this young woman is about to conceive [present continuous?] and will give birth to a son. [future] You, young woman, will name him Immanuel. [future] NET

The passage often gets misunderstood because this one verse gets yanked out of its context. you really have start at the beginning of the chapter to get it. You learn that Jerusalem is surrounded by the armies of two kings. The sign is not the miraculous birth of the child. The sign is that these armies will be defeated before the child has weaned.

In short, a sign is something that is SEEN. It is not usually a miracle. For example, the rainbow is given as a sign after the flood.

No one can SEE a virgin conceive.

 

[shunyadragon]

One of the reasons for collecting the letters included in the NT, and writing the gospels, was to codify orthodox doctrines. That was an early attempt to have only one kind of Christianity. But quite a few different ideas had spread in the decades between Jesus’s death and the gospels being written, so you could say there were lots of different Christianities, and the NT cannon was an attempt to narrow that down to one official religion.

Which failed, and resulted many conflicting variations from the Roman compilation of the NT.

 

[DavidSMoore]

Please show one error in the Bible?

I present below what I consider to be clear contradictions from the New Testament-- judge for yourself.

There are two genealogies of Jesus in the New Testament-- one in Matthew Chapter 1 and another in Luke Chapter 3. Here's what Matthew has to say about his genealogy:

So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations. (Matthew 1:17, NRSVue)

So according to Matthew there's a distinctive 14 / 14 / 14 pattern in the generations from Abraham to Jesus. But Luke crams an additional 13 generations in between King David and Jesus! So right off the top there's 13 contradictions!

The only names that match between the two genealogies from King David to Jesus are King David, Joseph the stepfather of Jesus, Jesus-- and two others: Shealtiel and his son Zerubbabel. None of the other 36 names in Luke's list match!

Of the 26 names in Luke's list between Jacob and Joseph the stepfather of Jesus (exclusive) only Shealtiel and his son Zerubbabel can be matched to any other names elsewhere in the Bible-- Old or New Testament!

Matthew says the father of Joseph was Jacob; Luke says his father was Heli.

Matthew says the father of Shealtiel was Jechoniah; Luke says it was Neri.

Matthew’s genealogy skips Jehoiakim, who is listed in I Chronicles 3:15 - 16 as the son of Josiah and the father of Jeconiah. (And that would break his lovely 14 / 14 / 14 pattern.)

Luke’s genealogy diverges from that of Genesis 11 by inserting the name Cainan between Arphaxad and Shela.

And most importantly we should consider the purpose of these two genealogies. They were included in the gospel narratives to "prove" that Jesus was of the House of David, thereby making it likely that Jesus was the Messiah. But both genealogies trace the lineage of Jesus through his stepfather Joseph-- who wasn't even a blood relation! They should have traced his bloodline through Mary, not Joseph.

Adding the above up I get a total of 79 contradictions from one example!

I can provide many other examples of what I consider to be contradictions from both Old and New Testaments-- but the above should suffice.

 

[DavidSMoore]

I'm sure this has been asked before. But not since I joined. I'm mainly concerned with Biblical authority and/or inerrancy. What's the verdict so far as you can tell?

Is Christianity true because the Bible says so?

Or does the Bible say so because it describes the truth of Christianity?

Great question. The general conception of the Bible among Christians is that every word is absolutely true. Here, for example, is a statement about the truth of the Bible from the Southern Baptist Convention:

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God’s revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy.
(Baptist Faith & Message 2000 - The Baptist Faith and Message)

No mistaking that one. Every word of the Bible is absolutely true, and there is no chance whatsoever that anything in the Bible could possibly be wrong, or misleading, or exaggerated. Here's the Catholic Catechism:

The Christian Creed-- the profession of our faith in God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and in God’s creative, saving, and sanctifying action-- culminates in the proclamation of the resurrection of the dead on the last day and in life everlasting.
We firmly believe, and hence we hope that, just as Christ is truly risen from the dead and lives for ever, so after death the righteous will live for ever with the risen Christ and he will raise them up on the last day.
(Catholic Catechism 988, 989; Part 1, Section 2, Chapter 3, Article 11)

That one is a bit more nuanced. The truth is the resurrection and the life everlasting. There's no explicit statement that every word of the Bible is absolutely guaranteed to be true. But in case you were worried that maybe the authors of the Catechism were too squishy on the subject, the Pope wants you to know that everything in the Catechism itself is faithful to the true meaning of the Bible:

A catechism should faithfully and systematically present the teaching of Sacred Scripture, the living Tradition in the Church and the authentic Magisterium, as well as the spiritual heritage of the Fathers, Doctors, and saints of the Church, to allow for a better knowledge of the Christian mystery and for enlivening the faith of the People of God.
(Catholic Catechism, On the Publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, pg. 4)

The Catholic Church is one of the few Christian sects that has actually endorsed the scientific theory of evolution. Most of the others don't. It's difficult for me to understand how you could approve of the scientific theory of the evolution of the universe and also believe that the story of the creation is absolutely true, word for word.

Here's the Presbyterian Church:

Q. 3. What is the Word of God?

1. The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the Word of God, the only rule of faith and obedience.

Q. 4. How doth it appear that the Scriptures are the Word of God?

1. The Scriptures manifest themselves to be the Word of God, by their majesty and purity; by the consent of all the parts, and the scope of the whole, which is to give all glory to God; by their light and power to convince and convert sinners, to comfort and build up believers to salvation; but the Spirit of God bearing witness by and with the Scriptures in the heart of man, is alone able fully to persuade it that they are the very Word of God.

(https://www.pcaac.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/LargerCatechismwithScriptureProofs1.pdf)

That states that the Scriptures are the "very Word of God." And since everyone knows that God is perfect, the Word of God must also clearly be absolutely without error. Now here's what the United Methodist Church has to say:

We say that God speaks to us through the Bible and that it contains all things necessary for salvation. This authority derives from three sources:

• We hold that the writers of the Bible were inspired by God, that they were filled with God’s spirit as they wrote the truth to the best of their knowledge.
• We hold that God was at work in the process of canonization, during which only the most faithful and useful books were adopted as Scripture.
• We hold that the Holy Spirit works today in our thoughtful study of the Scriptures, especially as we study them together, seeking to relate the old words to life’s present realities.

(https://www.umc.org/en/content/our-christian-roots-the-Bible)

The phrase of greatest interest to me in the above statement is "to the best of their knowledge." The Methodists don't seem to be claiming that the Bible is absolutely true, but rather that it is only true within the context of the knowledge available at the time.

You asked if Christianity is true because the Bible says so. I believe that the answer in general is yes, but with some caveats. Some, like the Southern Baptists, insist that every word of the Bible is absolutely true. Others, like the Catholics and the Methodists, seem to be allowing for a bit of nuance in the reading of some parts of the Bible-- such as the stories of the creation and the flood.

Your other question was whether the Bible says it is true because it describes the truth of Christianity. That would require a much broader analysis of the New Testament texts-- too much to pack into this response. But I would say that the Catholic Catechism comes closest to this view in the passage I cited above because it bases everything the Church believes on the truth of the resurrection of Jesus. So it's the Christian message that appears to be most true, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, not the actual details of what the Bible actually says. At least, that's my take on it.

 

[jimb]

I present below what I consider to be clear contradictions from the New Testament-- judge for yourself.

There are two genealogies of Jesus in the New Testament-- one in Matthew Chapter 1 and another in Luke Chapter 3. Here's what Matthew has to say about his genealogy:

So according to Matthew there's a distinctive 14 / 14 / 14 pattern in the generations from Abraham to Jesus. But Luke crams an additional 13 generations in between King David and Jesus! So right off the top there's 13 contradictions!

The only names that match between the two genealogies from King David to Jesus are King David, Joseph the stepfather of Jesus, Jesus-- and two others: Shealtiel and his son Zerubbabel. None of the other 36 names in Luke's list match!

Of the 26 names in Luke's list between Jacob and Joseph the stepfather of Jesus (exclusive) only Shealtiel and his son Zerubbabel can be matched to any other names elsewhere in the Bible-- Old or New Testament!

Matthew says the father of Joseph was Jacob; Luke says his father was Heli.

Matthew says the father of Shealtiel was Jechoniah; Luke says it was Neri.

Matthew’s genealogy skips Jehoiakim, who is listed in I Chronicles 3:15 - 16 as the son of Josiah and the father of Jeconiah. (And that would break his lovely 14 / 14 / 14 pattern.)

Luke’s genealogy diverges from that of Genesis 11 by inserting the name Cainan between Arphaxad and Shela.

And most importantly we should consider the purpose of these two genealogies. They were included in the gospel narratives to "prove" that Jesus was of the House of David, thereby making it likely that Jesus was the Messiah. But both genealogies trace the lineage of Jesus through his stepfather Joseph-- who wasn't even a blood relation! They should have traced his bloodline through Mary, not Joseph.

Adding the above up I get a total of 79 contradictions from one example!

I can provide many other examples of what I consider to be contradictions from both Old and New Testaments-- but the above should suffice.

They suffice to show that you have no understanding of the Bible.

 

[jimb]

Great question. The general conception of the Bible among Christians is that every word is absolutely true. Here, for example, is a statement about the truth of the Bible from the Southern Baptist Convention:



No mistaking that one. Every word of the Bible is absolutely true, and there is no chance whatsoever that anything in the Bible could possibly be wrong, or misleading, or exaggerated. Here's the Catholic Catechism:



That one is a bit more nuanced. The truth is the resurrection and the life everlasting. There's no explicit statement that every word of the Bible is absolutely guaranteed to be true. But in case you were worried that maybe the authors of the Catechism were too squishy on the subject, the Pope wants you to know that everything in the Catechism itself is faithful to the true meaning of the Bible:



The Catholic Church is one of the few Christian sects that has actually endorsed the scientific theory of evolution. Most of the others don't. It's difficult for me to understand how you could approve of the scientific theory of the evolution of the universe and also believe that the story of the creation is absolutely true, word for word.

Here's the Presbyterian Church:



That states that the Scriptures are the "very Word of God." And since everyone knows that God is perfect, the Word of God must also clearly be absolutely without error. Now here's what the United Methodist Church has to say:



The phrase of greatest interest to me in the above statement is "to the best of their knowledge." The Methodists don't seem to be claiming that the Bible is absolutely true, but rather that it is only true within the context of the knowledge available at the time.

You asked if Christianity is true because the Bible says so. I believe that the answer in general is yes, but with some caveats. Some, like the Southern Baptists, insist that every word of the Bible is absolutely true. Others, like the Catholics and the Methodists, seem to be allowing for a bit of nuance in the reading of some parts of the Bible-- such as the stories of the creation and the flood.

Your other question was whether the Bible says it is true because it describes the truth of Christianity. That would require a much broader analysis of the New Testament texts-- too much to pack into this response. But I would say that the Catholic Catechism comes closest to this view in the passage I cited above because it bases everything the Church believes on the truth of the resurrection of Jesus. So it's the Christian message that appears to be most true, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, not the actual details of what the Bible actually says. At least, that's my take on it.

Read my previous post.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

They suffice to show that you have no understanding of the Bible.

I get so tired of this dog and pony show. I'm so sick of people saying "You don't understand the Bible" when what they really mean is "You don't accept my interpretation."

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I present below what I consider to be clear contradictions from the New Testament-- judge for yourself.

There are two genealogies of Jesus in the New Testament-- one in Matthew Chapter 1 and another in Luke Chapter 3. Here's what Matthew has to say about his genealogy:

So according to Matthew there's a distinctive 14 / 14 / 14 pattern in the generations from Abraham to Jesus. But Luke crams an additional 13 generations in between King David and Jesus! So right off the top there's 13 contradictions!

The only names that match between the two genealogies from King David to Jesus are King David, Joseph the stepfather of Jesus, Jesus-- and two others: Shealtiel and his son Zerubbabel. None of the other 36 names in Luke's list match!

Of the 26 names in Luke's list between Jacob and Joseph the stepfather of Jesus (exclusive) only Shealtiel and his son Zerubbabel can be matched to any other names elsewhere in the Bible-- Old or New Testament!

Matthew says the father of Joseph was Jacob; Luke says his father was Heli.

Matthew says the father of Shealtiel was Jechoniah; Luke says it was Neri.

Matthew’s genealogy skips Jehoiakim, who is listed in I Chronicles 3:15 - 16 as the son of Josiah and the father of Jeconiah. (And that would break his lovely 14 / 14 / 14 pattern.)

Luke’s genealogy diverges from that of Genesis 11 by inserting the name Cainan between Arphaxad and Shela.

And most importantly we should consider the purpose of these two genealogies. They were included in the gospel narratives to "prove" that Jesus was of the House of David, thereby making it likely that Jesus was the Messiah. But both genealogies trace the lineage of Jesus through his stepfather Joseph-- who wasn't even a blood relation! They should have traced his bloodline through Mary, not Joseph.

Adding the above up I get a total of 79 contradictions from one example!

I can provide many other examples of what I consider to be contradictions from both Old and New Testaments-- but the above should suffice.

I think that what you've stated is well written and concise. So well done. I'm a former Christian, and in my experience, non-Christians usually know and understand the Bible better than most Christians. I doubt many Christians would like to admit it, but I've seen it happen repeatedly, in person and online.

 

[DavidSMoore]

I think that what you've stated is well written and concise. So well done. I'm a former Christian, and in my experience, non-Christians usually know and understand the Bible better than most Christians. I doubt many Christians would like to admit it, but I've seen it happen repeatedly, in person and online.

Thank you. This particular issue is pretty important as it concerns the validity of the claim that Jesus was of the house of David. BTW there are many parts of the Bible that I think make for wonderful literature.

 

[Anne1]

Thank you. This particular issue is pretty important as it concerns the validity of the claim that Jesus was of the house of David. BTW there are many parts of the Bible that I think make for wonderful literature.

The largest Christian denomination in the world is the Catholic Church, which has no problem with"contradictions". I believe this is only of interest to Protestants, who having ditched the main plank of Christianity, true tradition, has to try to explain 'contradictions"

 

[Subduction Zone]

The largest Christian denomination in the world is the Catholic Church, which has no problem with"contradictions". I believe this is only of interest to Protestants, who having ditched the main plank of Christianity, true tradition, has to try to explain 'contradictions"

The Catholics learned their lesson from the sciences a long time ago. One has to give them credit for that. What we see here from the protestant sects that make the mistake of treating the Bible as if it is all literally true is just ignorance and the flawed belief that extremely weak excuses are "refutations".

 

[Subduction Zone]

They suffice to show that you have no understanding of the Bible.

It seriously appears to be the other way around. To maintain your beliefs you have to ignore history, the sciences, logic, morals, and even the Bible itself at times.

As I just said, weak excuses are not refutations.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I present below what I consider to be clear contradictions from the New Testament-- judge for yourself.

There are two genealogies of Jesus in the New Testament-- one in Matthew Chapter 1 and another in Luke Chapter 3. Here's what Matthew has to say about his genealogy:

This is not to diminish your very well written post, but simply to add to it.

While Jewish identity is matrilineal, tribal affiliation and things like the line of David are patrilineal, and go only through the biological father. As long as Christians continue to insist that Jesus was born of a virgin (meaning he has no biological father) then he has NO tribal affiliation (Judah or otherwise), and NO claim to be the line of David.

 

[Brickjectivity]

You must have a PhD in sarcasm.

I've seen better: Kilgore Trout and (wasname that was dating illykitty). They were sarcasts. Quagmire is better, too.

 

[1213]

I present below what I consider to be clear contradictions from the New Testament-- judge for yourself.

There are two genealogies of Jesus in the New Testament-- one in Matthew Chapter 1 and another in Luke Chapter 3. Here's what Matthew has to say about his genealogy:

So according to Matthew there's a distinctive 14 / 14 / 14 pattern in the generations from Abraham to Jesus. But Luke crams an additional 13 generations in between King David and Jesus! So right off the top there's 13 contradictions!

Sorry, I think that is not necessary a contradiction, because Matthew is speaking of book of generation, which is not necessary the same as direct genealogy of Jesus.

The only names that match between the two genealogies from King David to Jesus are King David, Joseph the stepfather of Jesus, Jesus-- and two others: Shealtiel and his son Zerubbabel. None of the other 36 names in Luke's list match!

I think the main reason is that Matthew is not speaking of direct family tree, but about the book of the generation of Jesus. However, it is also possible that people had more than one name. This means that for example there could have been Heli Jacob. In Biblical times it was common to give same name that was already used in the family. To somehow distinguish what Jacob or Joseph, they could have had other names in addition.

It is also possible that due to original texts being fragmented, not all lists are necessary complete. That is why there is not necessary error, only missing parts that are because of the old age and conditions.

Luke’s genealogy diverges from that of Genesis 11 by inserting the name Cainan between Arphaxad and Shela.

By what I know, this seems to be a copy error, which is why it is missing from some translations.

And most importantly we should consider the purpose of these two genealogies. They were included in the gospel narratives to "prove" that Jesus was of the House of David, thereby making it likely that Jesus was the Messiah. But both genealogies trace the lineage of Jesus through his stepfather Joseph-- who wasn't even a blood relation! They should have traced his bloodline through Mary, not Joseph.

It was about being born to the house of David, not about being direct descendant.

Adding the above up I get a total of 79 contradictions from one example!

The problem is, the contradictions depend on your interpretation.

 

[jimb]

I get so tired of this dog and pony show. I'm so sick of people saying "You don't understand the Bible" when what they really mean is "You don't accept my interpretation."

No, the Bible clearly says what it says, if you know how to read it (with God's help). Christians are taught by the Holy Spirit, others are not.

Why do you think that Jesus spoke in parables, and said "This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: “‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’" Matthew 13:13-16

The message is not clear to everyone. And before you say that this is about "hearing", don't forget that Jesus was communicating truths to a basically illiterate society.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No, the Bible clearly says what it says, if you know how to read it (with God's help). Christians are taught by the Holy Spirit, others are not.

There is absolutely no evidence of this. You may hold it as a religious belief, an item of blind faith if you like. But don't expect others to take you seriously.

 

[jimb]

I think that what you've stated is well written and concise. So well done. I'm a former Christian, and in my experience, non-Christians usually know and understand the Bible better than most Christians. I doubt many Christians would like to admit it, but I've seen it happen repeatedly, in person and online.

Read the previous post.