Is the Bible too Contradictory for All of it to be True?

[savagewind]

If it is true that all scripture is God-breathed and to be believed as it was written, then how can it be said that God's sheep DO NOT listen to the voice of a stranger, seeing that there is no voice of a stranger?

 

[omega2xx]

Here I have two contradictions that I have been posting about forever that nobody seems to care about.

Proverbs 3:5 as read by the whole world:

Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding

People really do believe in leaning on other people's understanding. They lean on the understanding of the person who heard the word of God to write it down. They lean on the understanding of the copyists. They lean on the understanding of the people who explain what it all means.

What the authors wrote was not based on their own understanding. It was based on what God inspired them to write. The Christian's understanding depeneds on the truths the Holy Spirit guides us into.

The other thing they believe in is that Jesus commanded people to make other people believe in him.

Matthew 28:19 as read by most people:

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations

What is wrong with that? Every other idea they glean from scripture is backed by other scripture. It is how they know what it means. Matthew 28:19 has no supporting scripture. So.......either Bible texts need no other assenting scripture or they have Matthew 28:19 wrong.

I doubt if all Scripture is backed up by other Scripture, but I like that idea and hope it is true. IMO Acts 1:8 backs it up as does Eph 4:11. The spiritual gift of evangelism is about leading others to faith in Christ.

 

[omega2xx]

If you need something to occupy you for the next 8 hours, try googling 'biblical contradictions'.

Non-believers can't understand the Bible(1 Cor 2:14). Why don't you post their best 2 or 3 examples and see it they really understand what they say are contradictions.

 

[savagewind]

What the authors wrote was not based on their own understanding. It was based on what God inspired them to write. The Christian's understanding depeneds on the truths the Holy Spirit guides us into.





I doubt if all Scripture is backed up by other Scripture, but I like that idea and hope it is true. IMO Acts 1:8 backs it up as does Eph 4:11. The spiritual gift of evangelism is about leading others to faith in Christ.

They say that preaching makes a person a disciple. That is not what the Bible teaches.
When Jonah preached to the Ninevites, did they convert or were they straightened out?
When angels were sent to Sodom was it for converting those people to the way of the Jews?
Where is there anywhere else in all scripture inspired that it is mankind's job to be making more people who think as some who believe they are righteous do?

Preaching is for making the way of The Lord straight. It is not for getting people to believe you about everything.

Tell me about 1 Peter 3:1. It says people can be won over "without words". YOU say words are what causes other people to believe in Christ. Isn't that what you are saying?

 

[savagewind]

backs it up as does Eph 4:11. .

Ephesians 4:11 backs up my point of view, not your point of view.

So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers

Do you see who gives?

YOU say preaching makes those things. The Bible says CHRIST makes those things.

 

[savagewind]

The Bible teaches that a person is transformed into a believer by other believers.

In your opinion, how many does it take?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

For me, one huge consideration stares us right in the face -- there are just so many Christian denominations and sects. Throughout history, they have fought each other, anathematized each other, burned each other at the stake. Yet, they all read the same Bible.

And not only have they all read the same Bible, they all studied it with great care. Entire universities have been established around studying the Bible and the resulting theologies. Theological seminaries are filled with budding scholars and clergy, but some are Catholic (of several varieties), some Protestant (of a larger number of varieties), all having differing views of the very same material.

So how can anybody really suppose that the Bible can ever, remotely possibly be a source of "unambiguous truth?" I certainly couldn't.

 

[Skwim]

Can you provide some examples? Perhaps you haven't studied the Bible enough to understand it.

I give four examples of contradictions in post #5.


.

 

[Skwim]

You have presented one tough nut to crack and I will have to do a little tap dancing to get around it. One problem is that we do not and original mss and scribal errors in something as detailed as the Bible is, would likely happen occasionally.

So what? It's the what that matters, not the how. And the "what" is that the Bible has blatant errors in it.

God could have easily kept the errors out. so IMO, leaving them in is to test our faith.

Of course you're entitled to any opinion your want; however, it's a very poor sell to those of us who fail to see any rationality in it. If your god is indeed omniscient, as is claimed, he already knows the extent of your faith and how you would respond to any "test" of it. Moreover, to me it's a rather silly test, one that depends on someone coming across one of god's sneaky contradictions. How many times do you think this happens among Christians? If I was god, I believe I could devise a far better test of faith---one that everyone would have to take---than sticking a few contradictions in the Bible, which might be caught by a few. Nope, in light of god's supposed powers and the limited application of the "test," as test of faith your explanation is quite lame.

None of the errors change any basic doctrine of Christianity, and If I could only find 3, I would consider that of no importance.

Obviously. As I see it, and described in post #43 and elsewhere, it has substantial implications.

If that is the best Bible critics can do, I will stick with the rest of the Bible which has more truth that can be proved.

Don't you mean "possible truth"? After all, it's been shown that the Bible does have errors. Errors that may even affect its "truth."


.


.

 

[McBell]

You have presented one tough nut to crack and I will have to do a little tap dancing to get around it. One problem is that we do not and original mss and scribal errors in something as detailed as the Bible is, would likely happen occasionally. God could have easily kept the errors out. so IMO, leaving them in is to test our faith. None of the errors change any basic doctrine of Christianity, and If I could only find 3, I would consider that of no importance.

The only difference in 8 in Hebrew is III IIII preceded by something that looks like a shepherds crook. 18 is III IIII without the crook. It easy or me to consider the shepherd's crook got smudged in the original causing the scribe not use it if he could not know exactly what it was.

Adin's children

The number in Ezra was during the time of the captivity. The number in Nehemiah was after their release from captivity, approximately 40 years later.

Number of David's horsemen

This is and obvious scribal error. Evidently the word for chariot was inadvertently omitted by the scribe in copying 2 Samuel 8:14 for the simple reason no one wold write 7000, after he had written 1000, after recording of the same figure.

The reference to Machabees might be a problem for Catholics but not for Protestants.

If that is the best Bible critics can do, I will stick with the rest of the Bible which has more truth that can be proved.

You seem to be completely missing the point.

You admit there are errors.
How can one be sure, outside of faith, of what is and is not an error?

 

[omega2xx]

I give four examples of contradictions in post #5.


.

I agree with this
How do you know this?

I have found many more than three and I have posted about them all. Each one I have found is capable of changing a believers life-course imho. If a mistake can change a perosn's life-course, can it still be of no importance?

 

[savagewind]

I see no comment @omega2xx

 

[Skwim]

I see no comment @omega2xx

I believe we've left him speechless.


.

 

[roger1440]

The point of the OP isn't that a particular statement in the Bible is false, but its implication as to the veracity of the book. If any statement in the Bible can be shown to be false then it's very likely other statements are false as well. Possibly very important statements in fact. So trust in the truth of the Bible must be provisional---to the rational mind anyway. Don't care about rationality, and find meeting one's needs more important, then forge ahead and pick cherries to your heart's content.


.

No, that is prejudice. That would be like saying, “This real estate mogul president is bad, therefore all future real estate presidents are also bad.”

 

[McBell]

No, that is prejudice. That would be like saying, “This real estate mogul president is bad, therefore all future real estate presidents are also bad.”

I disagree.
He is actually saying "THIS real estate mogul president is bad, therefore it is possible other real estate moguls can be bad."

 

[Skwim]

No, that is prejudice. That would be like saying, “This real estate mogul president is bad, therefore all future real estate presidents are also bad.”

Sorry, but it is not. Here's how the reasoning of Bible's errancy goes in strictly formal logical terms.

P1. The Bible is inerrant if it has no errors
P 2. The Bible has errors
----------------------------------
C. The Bible is not inerrant
​

Now, in as much as it's been shown that the Bible has errors---it is not an inerrant book--- your problem is to prove that the errors pointed out are its only errors. Failing that, the possibility that the Bible has other unknown errors remains open. All of which leads to the justifiable conclusion that, "If any statement in the Bible can be shown to be false then it's very likely other statements are false as well." To not be likely one has to show why an error is necessarily the only error. And, as we've seen, there is more than one error in the Bible, which tremendously increases the likelihood there are more.

I disagree.
He is actually saying "THIS real estate mogul president is bad, therefore it is possible other real estate moguls can be bad."

Exactly!
.

.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

God should have "inspired" an editor to review the book for continuity and consistency at some point. Even the best authors rely on highly skilled editors to create a professional end-product.

 

[roger1440]

I disagree.
He is actually saying "THIS real estate mogul president is bad, therefore it is possible other real estate moguls can be bad."

The possibility of future real estate mogul presidents being bad has always been there, regardless if the current real estate mogul president is bad or not.

 

[Skwim]

God should have "inspired" an editor to review the book for continuity and consistency at some point. Even the best authors rely on highly skilled editors to create a professional end-product.

Another relevant point.

If god inspired the writing and subsequent translations of the Bible, why did he do such a **** poor job of it? And if he decided not to inspire the translators to do their job correctly then he must not care that they made errors, but then what would be the point in making sure it was correct when first written down? Not only does "His word" contain errors, but it has fostered thousands of denominations, most of which stand in conflict with each other to some degree or another. If I was god and wanted everyone to hear and believe what I had to say I'd make damn sure there would never be any errors in my message and that everyone would be on the same page.

But the Bible is no such thing, which to my mind completely blows away any claim that it's trustworthy.


.

 

[omega2xx]

So what? It's the what that matters, not the how. And the "what" is that the Bible has blatant errors in it.

If you call the ones you posted blatant, we have a different definition of "blatant." In fact you have not even use "blatant" correctly. IMO a scribal error only makes a contradiction if you have the original from which it was copied.

Of course you're entitled to any opinion your want; however, it's a very poor sell to those of us who fail to see any rationality in it.

I am not trying to sell you anything. I am offering you my opinion. You are trying to sell me something. If you are willing to reject the whole Bible over less than a handful of non-important issues, that is fine with me. I guess if you had a dictionary and found one error you would reject everything else in it.

IMO, there is a difference in an error and a scribal mistake.

If your god is indeed omniscient, as is claimed, he already knows the extent of your faith and how you would respond to any "test" of it.

If He is not omniscient, how could He prophesy so many things that were fulfilled? You did get something right, God does know how I will respond. but the important thing is for me to see how I would respond. I am I going to reject the whole volume of spiritual truth for a few non-important scribal mistakes?

Moreover, to me it's a rather silly test, one that depends on someone coming across one of god's sneaky contradictions. How many times do you think this happens among Christians? If I was god, I believe I could devise a far better test of faith---one that everyone would have to take---than sticking a few contradictions in the Bible, which might be caught by a few. Nope, in light of god's supposed powers and the limited application of the "test," as test of faith your explanation is quite lame.

In my way of thinking you don't get to determine what is silly. You also are not the final word about what is lame. IMO, rejecting all of the truths in the Bible because of a few scribal mistakes is not only lame, it is irrational.

Obviously. As I see it, and described in post #43 and elsewhere, it has substantial implications.

I will check that one out and get back to you

Don't you mean "possible truth"? After all, it's been shown that the Bible does have errors. Errors that may even affect its "truth."

No! I means what I sez and sez wqhat I means.


.


.[/QUOTE]


.


.[/QUOTE]

The children are not guilty of their parents crimes.
They are merely being punished for their parents crimes.