The Bible Contradictions Thread

philologos

I've said, that I do look to it occasionally. The points I articulate here, are based on my own thought on the passages however.

I don't think it's entirely fair to brand every single entry as rubbish however. A good site for questions is the Jews for Jesus Answers database:
http://www.jewsforjesus.org/answers

However, taking a site on it's word without thinking it through is always a bad idea.

liamw

Jakkass wrote: »

A lot of the contradictions you find on websites, are also dealt with on this link

Nice to see it deals with Exodus 21.
"In the case of a slave being property, that is simply the way things were done back then. As I said, God worked within the fallen system of man and put limits and guidelines concerning the treatment of slaves."

Why the hell would the 'fallen system of man' inhibit God to lay out perfect morals. What a copout.

Turtwig

liamw wrote: »

Nice to see it deals with Exodus 21.
"In the case of a slave being property, that is simply the way things were done back then. As I said, God worked within the fallen system of man and put limits and guidelines concerning the treatment of slaves."

Why the hell would the 'fallen system of man' inhibit God to lay out perfect morals. What a copout.

Ignore it, Liam's it's a pro literal inerrancy Apologetic group - AkA Delusional Idiots.


Edit:

Ahhh, now I see

Theories are testable and, ideally, falsifiable. Evolution is neither. It is, therefore, simply an idea. For some it is a belief, perhaps, but it cannot be rightly called either fact or theory when it refers to the "bacteria to bears" progression.

Though this information is brief and far from complete, it should be obvious that theistic evolution and the Scriptures cannot be harmonized

Jakkass, I think you should disregard everything from that site - find a better source for help.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Hm, no. I amn't saying that.

I am saying that the law distinguishes between points where humans should step in and deal with affairs, and when God should step in and deal with affairs.

I think God's morality does require us to go beyond the judicial law that He has assigned for humans.

So what you're saying is that god laid out a judicial law that the Israelites should follow but in order to follow god's morality they were required to go beyond that law so god laid out two laws for them, one of which is perfectly moral and the other of which is considered deplorable by today's standards and which they could apparently follow not only without being condemned as immoral but with god's approval because he laid out this morally deplorable judicial law for them instead of requiring them to follow the objective moral standard............makes perfect sense

robindch

Charco wrote: »

So which was it, did Jesus actually predict the destruction of the Temple or was this a false accusation?

In the context of a book populated with talking bushes and chatty serpents, a man who dies, comes back to life and flies up into the sky, a woman who turn into a huge chunk of salt, vengeful angels and tempting demons as well as much else besides, worrying about trifling internal contradictions seems vaguely pointless.

MrPudding

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not a Roman Catholic, so I don't think the Vatican would be too interested in me :pac:

Don't sell yourself short. Besides, that would be discrimination.:D

MrP

Flamed Diving

Wicknight wrote: »

I think it is some what naive to believe that there are going to be whopper literary contradictions in the New Testament, simply because if there were they would not have survived. Look at the non-canon books produced by early Christianity, that have talking crosses and Jesus moving objects as a child. They are discarded as the church developed and are now not considered divinely inspired at all, though obviously at some point people did believe them.

So for the first 200 years or so of Christianity there was a selection process going on deciding what was official Christian belief and what wasn't. It is hard to see major contradictions in the Bible surviving that process.

I'm well aware of all of this, Wickie. But considering the gravity of importance surrounding these events (at least to Christians), you think they would be able to agree on binary choices.

The boulder on the tomb was:

a) Covering the hole.

b) Not covering the hole.

These would be trivial details in any story, but this ain't any story.

Zombrex

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I'm well aware of all of this, Wickie. But considering the gravity of importance surrounding these events (at least to Christians), you think they would be able to agree on binary choices.

The boulder on the tomb was:

a) Covering the hole.

b) Not covering the hole.

These would be trivial details in any story, but this ain't any story.

True but Jakkass is correct that there are not glaring inconsistencies. Christians seem to have little trouble marrying the accounts into a single, if not particularly coherent, time line.

Flamed Diving

Wicknight wrote: »

True but Jakkass is correct that there are not glaring inconsistencies. Christians seem to have little trouble marrying the accounts into a single, if not particularly coherent, time line.

Not glaring, but inconsistencies, nonetheless. Not what one would expect from an book which was inspired (guided?) by the most powerful force in the universe.

I guess I have higher standards, when it comes to perfection. :pac:

Sam Vimes

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Not glaring, but inconsistencies, nonetheless. Not what one would expect from an book which was inspired (guided?) by the most powerful force in the universe.

I guess I have higher standards, when it comes to perfection. :pac:

And as you said earlier:

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I honestly don't think that I am going to get Christian posters to proclaim that the Bible is errant(?) or that Gods morals are not consistent, much like we don't expect JC or Wolfsbane to declare that Darwin was right all along in "that" thread.

But that's not really the point, Dades. Is it?

Zombrex

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Not glaring, but inconsistencies, nonetheless. Not what one would expect from an book which was inspired (guided?) by the most powerful force in the universe.

I guess I have higher standards, when it comes to perfection. :pac:

That was Robin's point though (if he will permit me to speak for him :P)

The Bible is so far removed from what we would expect the most powerful force in the universe to produce that the minor inconsistencies in the order that people found the empty tomb are really the least of it's troubles.

Debating Christians about that, when they don't really have an issue with it in the first place, sort of dignifises the rest of it, as if finding the tomb in the right order would make the story really believable

philologos

Charco wrote: »

Jesus and the destruction of the Temple.

According to John:

Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?"

Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days

But according to Mark:

Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: "We heard him say, 'I will destroy this man-made temple and in three days will build another, not made by man. " Yet even then their testimony did not agree.

So which was it, did Jesus actually predict the destruction of the Temple or was this a false accusation?

I thought it was referring to the temple of his body, and the Resurrection in the first account at least according to sermons I have heard on the topic. Makes sense considering the understanding of the body as a temple to God in later Christian scriptures.

Malty_T wrote: »

Ignore it, Liam's it's a pro literal inerrancy Apologetic group - AkA Delusional Idiots.


Edit:

Ahhh, now I see

Just because I disagree with one thing they argue, doesn't mean I disagree with how they deal with alleged contradictions. I of course reason whether or not these dealings are valid.

I don't take the same stance as you and call everyone that I disagree delusional idiots, nor do I slander people who differ with me about how Creation took place. Besides, it's such slander that encourages people to that kind of thought process.

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

Just because I disagree with one thing they argue, doesn't mean I disagree with how they deal with alleged contradictions. I of course reason whether or not these dealings are valid.

I don't take the same stance as you and call everyone that I disagree delusional idiots, nor do I slander people who differ with me about how Creation took place. Besides, it's such slander that encourages people to that kind of thought process.

Ok, just to drift off point ever-so-slightly. If you read this, what would you think?

Theories are testable and, ideally, falsifiable. Gravity is neither. It is, therefore, simply an idea. For some it is a belief, perhaps, but it cannot be rightly called either fact or theory when it refers to the "ball falling to ground" progression.

philologos

I'd say it is most likely wrong. I don't think I'd call people who seem for the most part intelligent, stupid for being wrong in relation to one field of science.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd say it is most likely wrong. I don't think I'd call people who seem for the most part intelligent, stupid for being wrong in relation to one field of science.

Well I never said they were stupid,

I said they were delusional and idiots i.e foolish which doesn't mean stupidity.

Seriously though their excuses are rubbish, I've read far better explanations of the bible than that website gives.
So in a word that website is :

Pure utter crap.(Ok that was three)

Jakkass,
One question, do you think the bible is a literally inerrant text?

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd say it is most likely wrong. I don't think I'd call people who seem for the most part intelligent, stupid for being wrong in relation to one field of science.

Nor would I, most likely ignorance on their part, though very likely to be wilful. However, this alone would make me doubtful about their critical faculties, in the very least.

Naz_st

Sam Harris on the inconsistancy vs inerrancy of the bible. As always, making good points (from here):

Christians regularly assert that the Bible predicts future historical events. For instance, Deuteronomy 28:64 says, "The Lord will scatter you among the nations from one end of the earth to the other." Jesus says, in Luke 19:43-44, "The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you." We are meant to believe that these utterances predict the subsequent history of the Jews with such uncanny specificity so as to admit of only a supernatural explanation. It is on the basis of such reasoning that 44 percent of the American population now believes that Jesus will return to earth to judge the living and the dead sometime in the next fifty years.

But just imagine how breathtakingly specific a work of prophecy could be if it were actually the product of omniscience. If the Bible were such a book, it would make specific, falsifiable predictions about human events. You would expect it to contain a passage like, "In the latter half of the twentieth century, humankind will develop a globally linked system of computers-the principles of which I set forth in Leviticus-and this system shall be called the Internet." The Bible contains nothing remotely like this. In fact, it does not contain a single sentence that could not have been written by a man or woman living in the first century.

Take a moment to imagine how good a book could be if it were written by the Creator of the universe. Such a book could contain a chapter on mathematics that, after two thousand years of continuous use, would still be the richest source of mathematical insight the earth has ever seen. Instead, the Bible contains some very obvious mathematical errors. In two places, for instance, the Good Book gives the ratio of a circumference of a circle to its diameter as simply 3 (1 Kings 7: 23-26 and 2 Chronicles 4: 2-5). We now refer to this constant relation with the Greek letter p. While the decimal expansion of p runs to infinity-3.1415926535 . . .-we can calculate it to any degree of accuracy we like. Centuries before the oldest books of the Bible were written, both the Egyptians and Babylonians approximated p to a few decimal places. And yet the Bible-whether inerrant or divinely inspired-offers us an approximation that is terrible even by the standards of the ancient world. Needless to say, many religious people have found ingenious ways of rationalizing this. And yet, these rationalizations cannot conceal the obvious deficiency of the Bible as a source of mathematical insight. It is absolutely true to say that, if Archimedes had written a chapter of the Bible, the text would bear much greater evidence of the author's "omniscience."

Why doesn't the Bible say anything about electricity, about DNA, or about the actual age and size of the universe? What about a cure for cancer? Millions of people are dying horribly from cancer at this very moment, many of them children. When we fully understand the biology of cancer, this understanding will surely be reducible to a few pages of text. Why aren't these pages, or anything remotely like them, found in the Bible? The Bible is a very big book. There was room for God to instruct us on how to keep slaves and sacrifice a wide variety of animals. Please appreciate how this looks to one who stands outside the Christian faith. It is genuinely amazing how ordinary a book can be and still be thought the product of omniscience

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70SYwkoH_yc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q37NhrCPNo

patmartino

robindch wrote: »

In the context of a book populated with talking bushes and chatty serpents, a man who dies, comes back to life and flies up into the sky, a woman who turn into a huge chunk of salt, vengeful angels and tempting demons as well as much else besides, worrying about trifling internal contradictions seems vaguely pointless.

Absolutely.
Jackass could you please reply to this. If all current evidence highlights the complete lack of evidence, do you believe in God only because of the bible.

Turtwig

Three words to point out the stupidity of biblical literal inerrancy..

philologos

Books of the Bible are meant to be read in context, as one would attempt to read other books. Mostly they come in this format:

1) Allegorical
2) Historical
3) Legalistic
4) Prophetic

This doesn't mean that these books are "wrong". It just means, well, that since the Bible or biblos translates roughly to library, you are going to find many books with differning literary styles.

Turtwig

We know they have different literary styles, but some Christians still take the Bible as a sort of scientific objective text of truth : Do you?

Jakkass,
One question, do you think the bible is a literally inerrant text?

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

We know they have different literary styles, but some Christians still take the Bible as a sort of scientific objective text of truth : Do you?

Considering we have had a debate about how science alone is inadequate in providing meaning or purpose in peoples lives, if the Bible were a science book, it would also be inadequate.

The mere fact that it is not, makes it what it is.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Considering we have had a debate about how science alone is inadequate in providing meaning or purpose in peoples lives, if the Bible were a science book, it would also be inadequate.

The mere fact that it is not, makes it what it is.

Literally Inerrant, yes or no?

philologos

Considering that many passages aren't to be taken literally. No.

Whether or not the Bible is the truth, and inspired by God Himself, yes it is in my opinion.

Edit: To give you a jist, this is a part of the Doctrinal Basis I agreed to when taking part on my Christian Union committee:

The divine inspiration and infallibility of Holy Scripture as originally given, and its supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct.

liamw

Malty_T wrote: »

Three words to point out the stupidity of biblical literal inerrancy..

..but the talking snake is just symbolic. Why are you taking it literally?! :rolleyes:

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

Books of the Bible are meant to be read in context, as one would attempt to read other books. Mostly they come in this format:

1) Allegorical, 2) Historical, 3) Legalistic, 4) Prophetic

This doesn't mean that these books are "wrong". It just means, well, that since the Bible or biblos translates roughly to library, you are going to find many books with differning literary styles.

The word 'Bible' comes from the Ancient Greek word βίβλος which translates as 'book'. The word for library is βιβλιοθήκη (hence German, Russian etc 'bibliothek').

For the bible to make sense, it must be read in the "context" of the religious beliefs of the person reading it -- in which case, it says exactly what people want it to say.

It's the ultimate literary chameleon and is so successful for no other reason than it supplies whatever "meaning" people otherwise lack, or are unable to develop for themselves.

philologos

I guess I am wrong on the direct translation of biblos.

However, my point is the Bible is a collection of writings gathered at different stages in time by different authors, and often with differing intentions. As such it's best to think about the context first.

From what I have read of it Fee and Stuarts How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth helps people to do this effectively and to idenitfy Biblical genres.

Flamed Diving

'Don't read it the wrong way, read it this way instead.'

Am I the only one who finds this a bit disturbing?

philologos

I don't believe it to be right or wrong, but effectively and intelligently. If this book is going to shape my life, I want to read it the best way I possibly can.

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't believe it to be right or wrong, but effectively and intelligently. If this book is going to shape my life, I want to read it the best way I possibly can.

But... you have already decided that this book is going to dictate your life. The reader will simply show you how to let it do that most effectively.

philologos

It's not dictating if it is my choice to do so. That's entirely autonomous. It's myself choosing to prescribe the moral maxims that God has revealed to mankind to my life as best as I can.

Turtwig

Flamed Diving wrote: »

'Don't read it the wrong way, read it this way instead.'

Am I the only one who finds this a bit disturbing?

I find it disturbing when it comes to creationists/ fundies/ or just plain weirdos.
However, the modern "mainstream" reading of the bible is nothing less than interesting, because not only do you learn the scripture you also learn alot about human's beings at the time and their cultural traditions - it really takes you back to their methods of living.

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

It's not dictating if it is my choice to do so. That's entirely autonomous. It's myself choosing to prescribe the moral maxims that God has revealed to mankind to my life as best as I can.

So why not read books that criticise the bible? I believe that if one is to truely understand ones personal beliefs, he must understand the arguments that stand against those beliefs. You will probably gain a fuller understanding of the book(s) and all its fallacies. Those two 'deconversion' videos above cite two such books.

liamw

Jakkass wrote: »

It's not dictating if it is my choice to do so. That's entirely autonomous. It's myself choosing to prescribe the moral maxims that God has revealed to mankind to my life as best as I can.

Why bother relying on it at all? You're obviously just picking and choosing certain verses and interpreting the text the way you want to; typically in a way that fits current social ethics.

You seem like a reasonable intelligent guy so stop attributing any good things or successes in your life to some invisible sky man.

Do you really think you would be a worse person if it wasn't for the Bible?

philologos

Flamed Diving wrote: »

So why not read books that criticise the bible? I believe that if one is to truely understand ones personal beliefs, he must understand the arguments that stand against those beliefs. You will probably gain a fuller understanding of the book(s) and all its fallacies. Those two 'deconversion' videos above cite two such books.

I've read both Dawkins and Hitchens on the Bible. I didn't find them convincing especially when a lot of their objections have already been dealt with by Christian apologists and philosophers.

I've also managed to sit through quite a few arguments in this forum. I know a lot of the arguments that are put forward. This doesn't mean that I have to reject my faith. I have chosen to embrace it because I've found that it is a part of who I am.

liamw wrote: »

Why bother relying on it at all? You're obviously just picking and choosing certain verses and interpreting the text the way you want to; typically in a way that fits current social ethics.

Why bother relying on God? I'd like to think that I don't leech off God, but rather that I am gaining a relationship with Him, and I am getting to know Him more. I've found that God changes lives genuinely, not only in my own walk with God, but in seeing many of my friends around me living for Him also.

As for current social ethics. I'm not so sure I agree here. A lot of my beliefs differ quite strongly with the way of the world. Particularly the age of liberal permissiveness we now live in.

liamw wrote: »

You seem like a reasonable intelligent guy so stop attributing any good things or successes in your life to some invisible sky man.

I believe people can be intelligent, and Christian. These aren't mutually exclusive.

liamw wrote: »

Do you really think you would be a worse person if it wasn't for the Bible?

Yes, I know this because I was.

liamw

Jakkass wrote: »

Why bother relying on God? I'd like to think that I don't leech off God, but rather that I am gaining a relationship with Him, and I am getting to know Him more. I've found that God changes lives genuinely, not only in my own walk with God, but in seeing many of my friends around me living for Him also.

You define an omniscient God, who by definition, cannot react to change your life. The only way he could appear to react is if your actions are all deterministic.

As for current social ethics. I'm not so sure I agree here. A lot of my beliefs differ quite strongly with the way of the world. Particularly the age of liberal permissiveness we now live in.

Are these anti-liberal beliefs influenced by the Bible?

I believe people can be intelligent, and Christian. These aren't mutually exclusive.

Again, I never said that.

Yes, I know this because I was.

Good for you I guess, still doesn't make it anymore true which you'll agree with.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, I know this because I was.

In what way?

philologos

liamw wrote: »

You define an omniscient God, who by definition, cannot react to change your life. The only way he could appear to react is if your actions are all deterministic.

Perhaps God had intended or determined to reveal Himself to me through life events at that point in time intentionally. That's both compatible with the hypothesis that God can determine the future through His omniscience, and the notion that my life changed. I will never know everything in minute detail to this point, but I can know more about God through my relationships with other people and through what I have come to stand for.

liamw wrote: »

Are these anti-liberal beliefs influenced by the Bible?

It might be more persuasive to use the term social conservatism, and in a few cases they are. I think it's worthy of lamentation at times what is endorsed and encouraged in society.

liamw wrote: »

Again, I never said that.

The assumption that one should be atheist because they are intelligent is one that is prone to frustrate.

liamw wrote: »

Good for you I guess, still doesn't make it anymore true which you'll agree with.

Of course I will agree. True or false goes beyond life experience.

Sam Vimes wrote:

In what way?

I'd prefer to keep this off a public forum.

MrPudding

Jakkass wrote: »

However, my point is the Bible is a collection of writings gathered at different stages in time by different authors, and often with differing intentions. As such it's best to think about the context first.

I thought the intention was to capture the word of god whilst being inspired by him?

MrP

philologos

MrPudding wrote: »

I thought the intention was to capture the word of god whilst being inspired by him?

MrP

Of course, but how this is done differs. Hence the need for thought and reflection.

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

I've read both Dawkins and Hitchens on the Bible. I didn't find them convincing especially when a lot of their objections have already been dealt with by Christian apologists and philosophers.

In fairness, neither Dawkins nor Hitchens books on God went into detail on the bible, so they don't count. Try one of those books in the videos, they were recommended to him by an linguistics academic. It might teach you a thing or two.

liamw

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd prefer to keep this off a public forum.

That's understandable. However, I think I'm starting to finally understand why you are religious. You obviously have very strong emotional ties with your God at this stage. The fact you attribute these positive chages in your life to God is quite sad though.

MrPudding

Jakkass wrote: »

Of course, but how this is done differs. Hence the need for thought and reflection.

I suppose this is another of my main issues with religion. Why does the "inspired word of god" need thought and reflection?

I cannot accept that a god of the supposed power and knowledge of yours is incapable of having his word recording in a clear and unambiguous manner. We expect school children to be able to write in a clear and unambiguous manner, why do we not expect the same of an all powerful all knowing god?

MrP

MrPudding

liamw wrote: »

That's understandable. However, I think I'm starting to finally understand why you are religious. You obviously have very strong emotional ties with your God at this stage. The fact you attribute these positive chages in your life to God is quite sad though.

I too find it sad. I am happy for Jakkass that he turned his life around, but for me it is a shame that he could not simply do it himself.

This reminds me of a thread some time ago where a number of posters stated that they felt there would be no point in living if they found out that god did not exist. These were people with families. I find that desperately sad.

MrP

Sam Vimes

MrPudding wrote: »

I too find it sad. I am happy for Jakkass that he turned his life around, but for me it is a shame that he could not simply do it himself.

The thing is he did do it himself, he's just giving someone else the credit when he did all the work

Flamed Diving

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The thing is he did do it himself, he's just giving someone else the credit when he did all the work

And best of all, when things go wrong, who's to blame?

pH

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd prefer to keep this off a public forum.

While I accept that it may be a personal question, it touches on a theme brought up often about the Bible and Christianity as a source of morality.

Seeing as you brought it up, perhaps you could list a few things, which your internal moral compass finds (or found) acceptable, but you have now accepted that are contrary to God's teachings and you now abstain from.

Yes there's a chance here of a dishonest answer listing behaviours that few here (on A&A) would have a problem with (like working on the Sabbath or premarital sex), but have a go anyway.

AtomicHorror

Flamed Diving wrote: »

And best of all, when things go wrong, who's to blame?

Atheists! Or Satan! Or Atheists under the influence of Satan!

If I listen to the silence I can just about hear him... What's that Satan? He's saying... "1 Kings 7:23".... and something like... "2 Chronicles 4:2".

Hm. I wonder what that means?

Dades

Jakkass, you don't owe it to anyone to spill the details of your personal life, imo - and I don't see any positive to be gained from it. We all know the responses will be the same no matter what story you tell (see above).