Scripture contradiction

[rational experiences]

Bible contradiction says, In the beginning of science reaction that lit up the night time sky, brother murdered the life spirit of his brother, in a nuclear ground fission.

What it said.

In the beginning he said 12 was holy, natural light and the EVEN balances were 12 and 12.

In the end the contradiction to HOLINESS was the 22 Revelations that said and so x 2 had removed Holy 24.

How was that statement not a proven contradiction to science being the DESTROYER?

 

[Samael_Khan]

Interesting thing is that no one has been able to show any contradiction in the Bible. People have only managed to show contradictions on their own interpretations and thoughts.

If there was a contradiction in the bible, what would it look like?

 

[rational experiences]

If there was a contradiction in the bible, what would it look like?

Contrary to the diction.....beginning....end.

 

[Twilight Hue]

@Unveiled Artist All of the so-called "contradictions" in the Bible are minor scribal errors or gross misinterpretations.

IF the bible is the word of God, there can be no contradictions that alter a Bible principle or teaching. It has one author, so how does that author argue with himself?

Actually it isn't scribal errors or gross misinterpretations. It's just a convenient denial for people who have a vested interest in denying any type of contradiction in their scriptures or holy writings.

In reality, there are a lot of contradictions in the Bible that fits the term beautifully.

In fact, the contradictions can even go outside of the Bible with Christians themselves, based on how they act and behave, for which the contradiction will illuminate the fact that the Bible has no real power or divinity to change its adherents to fit any type of narrative. Also one overall look at the old and New testaments would show you it's clearly two different types of mythology smashed together to the point it makes a very strange and bizarre 'fit' of which two opposing theologies would somehow be considered harmonious when it clearly isn't.

One example could be considered using the Old covenant versus the New covenant in face of narratives that states God doesn't change. If anybody has any inkling what the Old and New testaments are in regards to God, you will quickly realize that it is not the same theme by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[MJFlores]

One example could be considered using the Old covenant versus the New covenant in face of narratives that states God doesn't change. If anybody has any inkling what the Old and New testaments are in regards to God, you will quickly realize that it is not the same theme by any stretch of the imagination.

The Old Testament serves the foundation and the prophecies about God's promise about Christ.
It is about God's covenant with the Israelites, not with any other race or with any other nation but Israel.
Well, what about other nations and races? God has chosen Israel to be His.

Deuteronomy 7:6-8 New International Version (NIV)
For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.

The Lord did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. But it was because the Lord loved you and kept the oath he swore to your ancestors that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

And what was that you say? God doesn't change - and indeed God didn't.
But people changed and when people change what happens to the covenant [the agreement]?
Then there is a need for a new covenant because Israel was unfaithful
And this fact is written in the Bible:

Jeremiah 31:31-32 New International Version (NIV)
“The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,”
declares the Lord.

That new covenant was declared by the Lord Jesus Christ on the holy supper with his apostles.

Luke 22:20 New International Version (NIV)
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

So "the theme" is still there, there is continuity, as reflected in Hebrews 8:

Hebrews 8:8-13 New International Version (NIV)
But God found fault with the people and said:

“The days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them,
declares the Lord.
This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”

By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Oy vey, another one of these silly threads ...

I agree... it is silly. With absolutely no way to tie the content of any scriptural text with the God or gods referenced therein, there is still no good reason to worry about the truth of anything between the pages. It is no better than fiction. Who worries themselves over the contradictions that may arise in a Steven King novel - when his length gets so ridiculously long that it becomes apparent that he's forgotten where he started? No one. So should it be with religious texts.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I agree... it is silly. With absolutely no way to tie the content of any scriptural text with the God or gods referenced therein, there is still no good reason to worry about the truth of anything between the pages. It is no better than fiction. Who worries themselves over the contradictions that may arise in a Steven King novel - when his length gets so ridiculously long that it becomes apparent that he's forgotten where he started? No one. So should it be with religious texts.

^ what a strangely stilted attempt to sound clever

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

^ what a strangely stilted attempt to sound clever

What a clever way to dodge the entire implication of my post. Note well: you did not deny it.

 

[1213]

If there was a contradiction in the bible, what would it look like?

Good question. It should be something that makes some part of the Bible be wrong.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What a clever way to dodge the entire implication of my post. Note well: you did not deny it.

On the contrary, I took it as a valiant attempt to demonstrate all the intellectual prowess of a vestigial mote.

 

[halbhh]

And yet, there are contradictions in the Bible, and there's no getting around that, except by pretending you don't remember them.

But I don't think that's the most important thing. My own feeling is this: if religion (any religion), is in contradiction with the reality of the world in which we find ourselves, then I think that religion must be suspect...and very probably wrong.

For me, as a battered child, it was being told, "Jesus loves and protects you," when clearly that was not true in the slightest. I remember in Sunday school being told "God sees the little sparrow fall," and I thought to myself, "so what? If He doesn't do anything to stop it, He's nothing but a voyeur getting His jollies from suffering."

And we have to remember, all Christians once believed that the Parousia was immanent. It is related that Christ even said, "some of you here" will still be alive when it comes. That is in obvious contradiction to the facts, since lo these 2,000 years later, not a single person living then is still with us -- and we're still waiting.

I can never seem to find one that has much importance, having investigated about a dozen now. Is there any that are "substantial", as the OP is asking us? I didn't find one. One of the dozen I investigated was the often repeated one from atheist that one gospel account mentions 1 angel, and another gospel account mentions 2 beings or 'angels' shining in light.

Since these beings can suddenly appear at times in scripture, it doesn't really seem much of a contradiction that at one moment there could have been 1 present, and then at a different moment not long in time apart (not the same moment, but a later moment), there could have been 2...or alternatively 1 angel and also Christ risen and not yet recognized(?). Basically, when I examined a putative 'contradiction' it never really amounted to something that seemed of much significance.

Except in one interesting way!

You know what would have been really concerning, in the end...? -- it would have been concerning to me personally if everything was all polished and edited to fit together in an obvious way.

The one interesting thing about seeming differences in accounts is that such remained in the texts, without being excised, through the decades/centuries.

That seemed to have some significance. Accounts are left as they are, without changes, it would seem.

Nevertheless, I didn't believe in anything until I tested it, to discover first hand if it worked as it says. When one thing worked over and over, I began to believe in that one thing, but not the rest. I had to test each proposition, one at a time, to really accept it as meaningful. I only believed "love your neighbor as yourself" was the best possible way to live only after it proved superior to other ways I tried like being highly selective and loving only certain friends vs loving the random people next door, and only after I repeatedly tested it in different neighborhoods over years of time. Then, finally, I began to accept it was outright and fully superior to other competing ways to live. It is the best possible way of all competing ways. That meant something to me. That was convincing. Then I tested the next proposition, with equal skepticism and repetition. It took me about 15 years to test enough things to begin finally to realize that a track record of 15 out of 15, 100% perfection, itself had an unavoidable implication. The man, Jesus, totally knew what He was talking about, and better than other wise men. Better. I know that from having also testing a variety of other great thinker's ideas also. Such as Lao Tzu, Emerson, Carl Rogers, and many more.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Good question. It should be something that makes some part of the Bible be wrong.

Yeah. So only until we know that will we be able to examine the bible for errors.

From what I have seen, having been both theist and atheist, whether a certain scripture in constituted an error or not is wholly dependent on the viewpoint of the individual.

For instance, those who say the bible has contradictions might say that because all the gospels aren't consistent with information, with some absent in some gospels but some included, that this is a contradiction.

Those who say the opposite say that that would be the natural flow of witness accounts because they weren't parroting each other.

Both options are plausible. We cannot know which one is correct. And this is common with all seeming contradictions because there are always theories supporting why they aren't contradictions throughout the centuries.

Which until a conclusion, it is too easy to find possible solutions to the contradictions, rendering the Bible unfalsifiable, which is a problem.

 

[1213]

… there are always theories supporting why they aren't contradictions throughout the centuries.

Which until a conclusion, it is too easy to find possible solutions to the contradictions, rendering the Bible unfalsifiable, which is a problem.

Yes, as long as there is a way to see it non-contradictory, it can be non-contradictory. But why it is a problem? Why it would be necessary to call it contradictory or non-contradictory?

 

[Samael_Khan]

Yes, as long as there is a way to see it non-contradictory, it can be non-contradictory. But why it is a problem? Why it would be necessary to call it contradictory or non-contradictory?

So that one can determine whether the book is telling the truth in certain cases or not.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yes, as long as there is a way to see it non-contradictory, it can be non-contradictory. But why it is a problem? Why it would be necessary to call it contradictory or non-contradictory?

I think a lot of it has to do with the idea that people have that God somehow worded and directed the text to be infallible and error-free, for which the Bible serves as a literary miracle of a non contradictory work.

Given that there is no God speaking or communicating whatsoever, it's not surprising to see that Christianity is trying desperately to make the Bible appear more than what it actually is by imbuing it with impossible qualities.

 

[1213]

I think a lot of it has to do with the idea that people have that God somehow worded and directed the text to be infallible and error-free, for which the Bible serves as a literary miracle of a non contradictory work.
...

But, if we could prove that it is without errors, as I think it is, it would not make any difference, so it is kind of pointless matter.

 

[Twilight Hue]

But, if we could prove that it is without errors, as I think it is, it would not make any difference, so it is kind of pointless matter.

It's already proven to have errors and contradictions. For those that accept that fact that's fine, but there's still a lot of people out there who just cannot, and tries to look for workarounds to make it not look like a contradiction or error.

 

[1213]

It's already proven to have errors and contradictions. For those that accept that fact that's fine, but there's still a lot of people out there who just cannot, and tries to look for workarounds to make it not look like a contradiction or error.

All I have seen are contradictory interpretations. And it is interesting why God’s enemies can’t give anything else than misunderstanding and bad interpretations.

 

[Twilight Hue]

All I have seen are contradictory interpretations. And it is interesting why God’s enemies can’t give anything else than misunderstanding and bad interpretations.

People can twist around words pretty casually and can make things sound however they choose. It's why I'm more or less privy to go outside the box and point out that the biggest contradictions can be the adherents themselves through comparisons of what actually is claimed and what actually happens.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Is there one or two solid contradictions in christianity/biblical teachings that are more substantial than just going by historical differences based on the nature of the bible and the manner it was put together?

Can you find a contradiction to the message(s)?

I was wondering because when I read all these contradictions of the bible, it doesn't seem any different than any other contradiction in many religious text. The idea isn't to prove by finding archaeology and the real jesus' tombs anymore is it to prove that the biblical god actually murdered people and gold and jewels in heaven.

So, if there are relevant contradictions in the bible, what are those contradiction(s) that's specific to the actual biblical teachings?

Of course believers would highlight scripture, but in my opinion, it should be the message that's focused on not whether jesus was actually crucified, where, when, and how.

So...

I'm not sure what you would consider more significant. The gospels, for example have many, many contradictions. Where would I even begin? They make up prophecies from the Tanakh that don't even exist (like that the Messiah would be a Nazarene). They conflict with each other (like the synoptics having Jesus crucified on Passover, and John having him crucified on the day of preparation).

The thing is, if you point out these serious problems, which really utterly undo the idea of inerrancy, it still doesn't phase true believers, especially the evangelical sort. Their faith is based on an emotional experience (being born again, and having a "relationship" with a non-existent person).

You can't really overturn that very easily, and honestly, perhaps we shouldn't -- it can cause tremendous emotional upheaval to bring their house down. I think it's better to leave them alone, since they do worship God and are decent human beings.