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

[omega2xx]

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.


.

Only if you have evidence it was not a scribal mistake. Of the 4 you offered, I showed where one was not a contradiction. The others are so obvious, the most logical conclusion is that they are scribal mistakes. If a book is 99.9999% accurate, what is says can b e considered accurate.

I know you will not accept fulfilled prophecy, but that is because you start with a preconceived idea. You will also accept miracles for the same reason.not

 

[omega2xx]

They say that preaching makes a person a disciple. That is not what the Bible teaches.

Agreed.

When Jonah preached to the Ninevites, did they convert or were they straightened out?

Jon 3:5 says the believed in God . That is what is need for conversion.

When angels were sent to Sodom was it for converting those people to the way of the Jews?

No, it was to save Lot and his family

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?

The Scriptures tell Christians to be witnesses of the truth of the gosple---the good news.

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

Preaching is for understanding what God's word says. It is also for encouragement

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?

Right, by living what we say is important some will see that we take our religion seriously and might be interested in learning more about it.

 

[savagewind]

Preaching is for understanding what God's word says.

Your way. Whenever a person preaches God's word the person first hears the gospel the preacher's way.

Do you know some people claim they know "what the Bible really teaches"?

It sounds like you also think you know because you say "preaching is for understanding".

I think preaching is a sign.

 

[savagewind]

Preaching is for a warning. I think that is an obvious teaching of the Bible.

They say preaching is for making disciples. I think baptism is for making disciples.
It is the water and the spirit which makes them so. It is not other disciples that make them.

 

[Skwim]

Only if you have evidence it was not a scribal mistake. Of the 4 you offered, I showed where one was not a contradiction. The others are so obvious, the most logical conclusion is that they are scribal mistakes. If a book is 99.9999% accurate, what is says can b e considered accurate.

I'm sorry you're unable to grasp the significance of what I'm telling you, but take care and have a good day..

.

 

[Milton Platt]

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

Then your god is an *** and my morals are far superior to his

 

[savagewind]

Then your god is an *** and my morals are far superior to his

You might want to rethink that. Do you want me to tell you why?

 

[McBell]

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.

Is that not the point though?
There are those who claim the Bible is inerrant.
There are those who claim the Bible is infallible.
Thus, they are claiming no possibility for error.
at all.
ever.

As you point out above, and the reason your analogy fails, the possibility of future real estate mogul presidents being bad has always been there.

 

[McBell]

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.

Except he is using the word blatant correctly in the sentence you quoted.
You do understand there is more than one definition of blatant, right?

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

So you claim a scribal mistake is not an error?

If He is not omniscient, how could He prophesy so many things that were fulfilled?

An extremely and heavily debated claim that seems like nothing more than an appeal to divinity.

 

[McBell]

Then your god is an ***

No idea where the "your god" nonsense comes from seeing as I am openly an atheist.

my morals are far superior to his

Bold empty claim

 

[omega2xx]

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.

It doesn't says "Christ Himself." It says He, Christ, gave some as, apostles, etc. That is a reference to spiritual gifts, not to hearing preaching. I did not says, preaching makes those things. Preaching doesn't make anything. It is for teaching.

I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. C.S.Lewis

 

[omega2xx]

Except he is using the word blatant correctly in the sentence you quoted.
You do understand there is more than one definition of blatant, right?

Blatant: 1. Loud mouthed, offensively noisy, in course taste. 2. obtrusive, a blatant error.
3. bleating . The American College Encyclopedic Dictionary.

However, I probably should not have mentioned it since it does not applyto the discussion.

So you claim a scribal mistake is not an error?

I prefer "mistake" although I can see why it could be considered an error. IMO it would be an error if the original mss said the same thing. Copying something wrong I think is a mistake in the copying process.

In any even, I would never throw out the whole Bible for one error, I would not throw out the whole dictionary for one error. Where else can I find correct definitions?

An extremely and heavily debated claim that seems like nothing more than an appeal to divinity.

Call it what you like. I had my say and that is all I am here for. Most of what I say will be rejected by most in this forum.

I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. C.S.Lewis

 

[omega2xx]

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.

Does the Bible teach the things you just mentioned? The have not studied it withe great care of they would not have violated its teachings. In trying to understand scriptural concepts, it would be common to have varying views. That is just as true in other disciplines. Look at our supreme court. They all studied the same laws, but they have different opinions.

Maybe if you studied it with great care and ask God to help you understood, you would find that much of what you considered "unambiguous truths," is not what you think.


I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. C.S.Lewis

 

[omega2xx]

Your way.

Not my way. I try to use God's way, which is found in His inspired word. In the book of Acts, Christianity is called "the Way."

Whenever a person preaches God's word the person first hears the gospel the preacher's way.

That's right but God has given us His word, so we can see it the preachers way is God's way.

you know some people claim they know "what the Bible really teaches"?

If one continues to study the Bible the can know what it says. Most of the Bible is written at about a 10th grade reading comprehension level. However no man will ever know the Bible 100%. However, it is not necessary to know it 100%. WE all need to know the basics 100%,

It sounds like you also think you know because you say "preaching is for understanding".

I learned much more from personal study, than from preaching. I learned more in Sunday school, than from preaching. Although preaching is about teaching, the main part of the Sunday service should be about worship.

think preaching is a sign.

What is it a sign of?

 

[omega2xx]

I'm sorry you're unable to grasp the significance of what I'm telling you, but take care and have a good day..

.

So if I don't agree with you, I don't understand. Your opinions are not new to me. I have been given them many times and I undersatnd them perfectly.


I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. C.S.Lewis

 

[Ben Avraham]

Is the Bible too contradictory for all of it to be true? I've heard that said about the Bible, but I don't know enough about it. What do you think?

No, it is not but, there are more than several texts that we must go metaphorical with them in order to prevent the Tanach from being contradictory. The apparent existence of errors in the Tanach is not in the Tanach but with the reader who has no expertise in metaphorical language.

 

[savagewind]

I do not know if there are any contradictions in what was heard from God to write it, but I have another contradiction for you to consider, if you will.

It is written (in modern Bibles) that a believer in Christ Jesus should obey those taking the lead. Hebrews 13:17
To obey someone, a person has to understand that it is God's will the person who takes the position is to be trusted.

To trust that the person is placed by God there to trust in him, is leaning on your own understanding.
You must trust that he or she is not a liar, Romans 3:4; that his or her heart is not treacherous Jeremiah 17:9; and that he or she is not one who practices secret sin. 1 Corinthians 15:33

Proverbs 3:5 contradicts Hebrews 13:17.

New Living Translation
Obey your spiritual leaders, and do what they say. Their work is to watch over your souls, and they are accountable to God. Give them reason to do this with joy and not with sorrow. That would certainly not be for your benefit.

New International Version
Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar. As it is written: "So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge."

JPS Tanakh 1917
The heart is deceitful above all things, And it is exceeding weak--who can know it?

Young's Literal Translation
Be not led astray; evil communications corrupt good manners;

American Standard Version
Trust in Jehovah with all thy heart, And lean not upon thine own understanding:

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The spiritual gift of evangelism is about leading others to faith in Christ.

This can also be seen as taking away the cultures, traditions and beliefs of others, and replacing them with your own. You may see that as a "gift" -- I see it as repulsive. And there are horror stories enough from around the world of the suffering caused by such missionary work.

I prefer the ideas proffered by the Star Trek series of non-interference -- because who the hell are you to suppose you're beliefs are better than anybody else's?

 

[Hawkins]

The Bible is an example of how God pass a perfect theology through the hands of the imperfect humans.

You can never find another book (of history) written by humans 2000 years ago as so complete as the Bible, unless you try to apply a double standard to human history and the Bible.

Moreover, the Bible is the only human book allowing you to compare with ancient scrolls and human records to tell that the same message conveying today remains the same message conveying 2000 years ago, theologically.

That's the way how God brings forward His message of salvation, which basically serves the following purposes;

1) it must a true human account of testimony in terms of how it is written, how it is preserved and how it is delivered from generation to generation. Such that it can stand witnessing in the court of Heaven

2) it is the only way for God to carry the theology as a whole across a human history of more than 3000 years. No other theology of any other holy books can be with their contents remaining intact as a testimony that in terms of His salvation and judgement, He tells the same to humans yesterday, today and tomorrow.

3) it serves the purpose of filtering out the unwanted wannabe wicked humans
From the read of this thread, this purpose is serving very well.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Contradictions in religious text happen all the time. I don't see how spelling errors and words and things like how many days the earth was being created means anything at the scheme of things.

I already ate Joe.

I already ate, Joe.

Just a simple alteration of grammar. Has no significance whatsoever. Sure, Joe would mind the difference, but who cares about Joe?

I think we can understand that, there is an error after thousands of years of history...which does nothing to the big picture.

If a king says he won a battle with a few hundred and the grace of God, and there were thousands of soldiers instead ... actually, I think that makes a difference.

Of course, I take all the military stuff in the bible with a grain of salt.

I read that the birth of the child is what caused the Lord's enemies to lose respect for David.

How? Sleeping around was hardly a problem for men in that culture.

"I banged 1000 chicks last night, Dad."
"Awesome, son!"

It is possible that the child born of fornication, if he had lived, would have weakened the nation and strengthened the enemies of that nation and all History after that would have been very different.

LOL, yes, his other "legit" kids were SO much better.

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

I tend to believe that's more because Christianity will tell itself anything to avoid unpleasantries. The Religion of Truth will bend over backwards to lie when it suits it.

What the authors wrote was not based on their own understanding. It was based on what God inspired them to write.

Why does God only seem to have minimal narrative skills and no scientific or historical information beyond that which the human authors describe?

The spiritual gift of evangelism is about leading others to faith in Christ.

The Holy Spirit is off duty? Why trust humans with a badly written sales brochure when I can have the Expert tell me Himself?

If He is not omniscient, how could He prophesy so many things that were fulfilled?

Because omniscience is a character trait that appeared later on in God's "backstory" and all the prophecies you read about can only be traced to AFTER the events they mention.

I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. C.S.Lewis

Ah, a hack kid's author given the authority of gospel. I can do that too:

I told the others, they didn’t believe me. You’re all doomed. You’re all doomed. -- Friday the 13th

"What we've got here is failure to communicate." -- Cool Hand Luke

"If you build it, he will come." -- Field of Dreams

Kermit's Conscience: Still, whether you promised them something or not, you gotta remember - they wanted to come.

Kermit: But... that's because they believed in me.

Kermit's Conscience: No, they believed in the dream.

Kermit: Well, so do I, but...

Kermit's Conscience: You do?

Kermit: Yeah! Of course I do.

Kermit's Conscience: Well then?

Kermit: Well then... I guess I was wrong when I said I never promised anyone. I promised me. -- The Muppet Movie

You can never find another book (of history) written by humans 2000 years ago as so complete as the Bible, unless you try to apply a double standard to human history and the Bible.

I've read better, and there are older tales than what comes from the bible.

Moreover, the Bible is the only human book allowing you to compare with ancient scrolls and human records to tell that the same message conveying today remains the same message conveying 2000 years ago, theologically.

I can read documents that can be shown to be even older. Now what?