Biblical Contradictions

[Cooraan]

I always hear of people talking about Biblical contradictions in the Bible. However, in all my years of Bible reading and studying I've noticed few; if any that couldn't be explained with some proper examination.


But anyways I'd like for some of you to post what contradictions you've found. I would just google for them but I'm a bit more trusting with the people here.

Please keep it polite, and respectful. Everyone here is mature enough for us to be able to talk about such things without insulting (hopefully).

[(s)AINT]

Are you a Christian?

[Cooraan]

Yes.

[(s)AINT]

No wonder you've never found any. You've probably read though it with the idea that it has none. After all you are a Christian, and the Bible is the word of God. Why would there be contradictions in Gods words?

I'm assuming if you haven't realized yet.

[Cooraan]

How about you say something relative for once? You never seem to add anything to discussion, your posts always seem to just insult without reason.

No wonder you've never found any in all your "years". You've probably read though it with the idea that all of it is true. After all you are a Christian, and the Bible is the word of God. Why would there be contradictions in Gods words?

Seriously, I ask for a discussion without insults and the very first thing you do is insult. Either add something or just get out of the thread please.

[basics]

" No wonder you've never found any. You've probably read though it with the idea that it has none. After all you are a Christian, and the Bible is the word of God. Why would there be contradictions in Gods words? I'm assuming if you haven't realized yet. "

Faaip de Oiad,

There are two reasons that I bring before you regarding the Bible and the first is that to the unbeliever he or she sees only the dead letter. This you haven't realised yet. And the second is the principle that context and flow must be in line with the leading of the Holy Ghost which the unbeliever doesn't have, so as a consequence they only see what they want to see. So, where are these contradictions?

[justicar5]

" No wonder you've never found any. You've probably read though it with the idea that it has none. After all you are a Christian, and the Bible is the word of God. Why would there be contradictions in Gods words? I'm assuming if you haven't realized yet. "

Faaip de Oiad,

There are two reasons that I bring before you regarding the Bible and the first is that to the unbeliever he or she sees only the dead letter. This you haven't realised yet. And the second is the principle that context and flow must be in line with the leading of the Holy Ghost which the unbeliever doesn't have, so as a consequence they only see what they want to see. So, where are these contradictions?

how about the contradiction of a 'loving and just god' butchering billions (The Flood) and revelling in slaughter (Exodus and on to at least Leviticus) ? Ordering rapes (Forced marriages for female prisoners, after their entire cities population had been killed in front of them)? Ordering the Killing of children? Ordering the genocide of entire peoples? Ordering Moses to butcher thousands of his own people? Ordering the execution of rape victims?

It doesn't matter that he changed his mind later, the very disregard for life and love of slaughter shown in the OT makes the NT completely irrelevant, like a 'Mein Kampf: My little pony edition'

Yes, it is. The Bible has a very specific goal, and that is our relationship with God. The Old Testament shows man's sinful ways and our need for a Savior. T
.

Except that the atrocities in the OT are ordered by GOD HIMSELF, not 'sins' but divine commandments.

[(s)AINT]

I'm having a discussion with you. I didn't insult you, I assumed that you've read though it assuming it is all true. That is hardly insulting to the say the least.

Now do you want to respond to the points I made or continue you whine and derail your own thread?

How about you say something relative for once? You never seem to add anything to discussion, your posts always seem to just insult without reason.

Really? Do you monitor what I post in this forum every day? If you do you've got too much time on your hands.

Also, if you are going to quote me, quote EVERYTHING in my post, not just pieces of it.

[Cooraan]

Your "discussion" has nothing to do with my topic. If it wasn't an insult then I apologize, but assuming I blatantly ignored what I was studying just because I'm a Christian is pretty insulting. Which also had nothing to do with the topic.

Really? Do you monitor what I post in this forum every day? If you do you've got too much time on your hands.

No but you are one of the atheists in the EMM that post quite often, so it's not exactly hard to know how you post. And especially considering most other atheists actually add to the topic, while you don't.

And please either post contradictions, or just leave the thread.

[(s)AINT]

Your "discussion" has nothing to do with my topic. If it wasn't an insult then I apologize, but assuming I blatantly ignored what I was studying just because I'm a Christian is pretty insulting. Which also had nothing to do with the topic.

No, I said you come off as bias if you find little or no contradictions in the bible SINCE you are a Christian and that is your holy book. What I said had everything to do with your topic. It is like a Muslim reading the Quran and finding little contradictions (fortunately for you, you can admit there are contradictions while a Muslim might not).

No but you are one of the atheists in the EMM that post quite often, so it's not exactly hard to know how you post. And especially considering most other atheists actually add to the topic, while you don't.

And please either post contradictions, or just leave the thread.

I'll take that as a compliment and I would like to say thank you.

[Cooraan]

No, I said you come off as bias if you find little or no contradictions in the bible SINCE you are a Christian and that is your holy book. What I said had everything to do with your topic. It is like a Muslim reading the Quran and finding little contradictions (fortunately for you, you can admit there are contradictions while Muslims don't)

. Which is why I'm asking for people to post them, the intent of the topic, which you aren't doing. Instead of telling me I don't find contradictions because I'm Christian(a completely ignorant statement), you could show me.

I'll take that as a compliment and I would like to say thank you.

Congratulations on being irrelevant to discussion.

[Nihirizumu no tsumetai ame]

I think that the reason that Faiip said that in his first comment is simply because of worldview. As a student of Anthropology, i suggest that societies and the individuals that take part in them adhere to a set of ideals that form their culture and social structure. These ideas in turn form what the society sees and doesnt see. Hence in other terms one sees what they want to, or were taught to see, and hence cannot find flaws on those ideas. that is unless they shape themselves into wanting to see those ideals and let go slightly of their old worldview.

anyways a contradiction in it is the stark differences between Gods attitude towards humanity from the old testament to the new one.. in the old one, god was rather harsh, nearly unforgiving, wanting unwavering loyalty.. or he disposed of even entire cities if he didnt get his way.. in the new testament he was a more loving character, and even made sacrifices for humanity

[Squiggle]

Uhh its very Christian to concede the possibility of contradictions in the Bible, given that biblical inerrancy is a secondary doctrine and not a primary one. Its exceedingly easy to drop it as a scholar, historian, a skeptic or in general and hold to all major biblical doctrines. As to the contradictions, yeah the same here. Multiple times on this site atheists blindly quote from a random atheist website and force me to go through the bible and quote it to them. More often than not they dont understand the context, though a surprising degree of the time they quote a passage and assert it says "x" when it says literally the exact opposite, and could never be construed as anything but that.

anyways a contradiction in it is the stark differences between Gods attitude towards humanity from the old testament to the new one.. in the old one, god was rather harsh, nearly unforgiving, wanting unwavering loyalty.. or he disposed of even entire cities if he didnt get his way.. in the new testament he was a more loving character, and even made sacrifices for humanity

How is that a contradiction? New testament with mankind and all that jazz? God interacts with humanity in history, and acts in accordance with our own capacity to adhere to his wishes. It's no more a contradiction then when a parent gives a different punishment for a similar offense to their child based on age.

[Nimthill]

How is that a contradiction? New testament with mankind and all that jazz? God interacts with humanity in history, and acts in accordance with our own capacity to adhere to his wishes. It's no more a contradiction then when a parent gives a different punishment for a similar offense to their child based on age.

This type of reasoning is the reason you don't find contradictions in the bible as a christian. Just about anything can be talked straight, but that doesn't mean it is straight.

[Monarchist]

Uhh its very Christian to concede the possibility of contradictions in the Bible, given that biblical inerrancy is a secondary doctrine and not a primary one. Its exceedingly easy to drop it as a scholar, historian, a skeptic or in general and hold to all major biblical doctrines.

The inerrant quality of Biblical history is a primary doctrine in the Roman Catholic Church, at least. Perhaps you're not Catholic... so don't make a blanket statement like that. It is incredibly important. Let us not downplay the immensity of this subject just to make it sound like we're really calm about the atheist attack. We know there is more to history than is told in the entire Bible. 50% of salvation-truth is from the Bible, 50% is from the Living Tradition, and that 100% is the whole Teaching Magisterium.

Modern Biblical analysis shows that they did a good job, as Mark Matthew Luke and John indeed appear to be the oldest Christian manuscripts -with the exception of one or two doubtful cases.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons categorically listed the canon books of the Old and New Testament of God in his "Adversus Haereses" (Against the Heresies) in the middle of the 2nd century. Interestingly for denominational purposes, he included Tobit as canon. He had no "official" Church-approved list, but he said that all Christians and their bishops across the world "agree to this order and arrangement". It's either in Book I or Book II of the treatise... look for yourself, any who doubt: http://newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm !

I have a Biblical contradiction for the OP.

When did Lucifer rebel, fall from Grace, and become the fallen angel (Devil) he is today?

Does it particularly matter? The Bible does not tell us anywhere. It is a set of books with varying styles, all of which focus entirely on God's salvation, "strong right arm" guiding humanity, and the future. There is great hope amidst the darkness and slaughter. A long story is told through many media. Focusing on when Satan did what he did and why would be out of keeping with the entire tome.

I'm a Gnostic Christian myself so I don't really believe his death "saved us from our sin" but have a read of Mere Christianity by C.S Lewis a more orthodox Christian who says likewise, he saw it in a slightly different context as well.

If you're a gnostic, why on Earth is there a 3D representation of a crystal cross in your avatar? That is pure heresy. Better get the Final Ablutions before you are forever rejected from the Pleroma by the Aeons, heretic!

how about the contradiction of a 'loving and just god' butchering billions (The Flood) and revelling in slaughter (Exodus and on to at least Leviticus) ? Ordering rapes (Forced marriages for female prisoners, after their entire cities population had been killed in front of them)? Ordering the Killing of children? Ordering the genocide of entire peoples? Ordering Moses to butcher thousands of his own people? Ordering the execution of rape victims?

It doesn't matter that he changed his mind later, the very disregard for life and love of slaughter shown in the OT makes the NT completely irrelevant, like a 'Mein Kampf: My little pony edition'

There is no contradiction. Just because "God is charity" doesn't mean God has to be a totally cuddly puppy. What unjust actions are there in the butchery of the Old Testament? You are operating entirely on the principle that God's actions affected entirely material beings. This perspective is not right. If you believe God does not exist, you cannot get angry at a fictional deity for killing people. If you believe that God does exist, you cannot get angry at Him for ending the material lives of beings who are both spiritual and material. By washing away millions of people in a Flood or swallowing up 250 rebels in a flaming chasm, He may have ended their Earthly sojourning, but He also cut short corrupt, sinful lives and saved them from further falling into revolt.

You must remember that if God ends a life directly (as with Elisha's famous bears mauling the young men), it is His prerogative. Were God really extent, He would be entirely justified doing this because He's GOD. There's more going on, and more is seen in the Universe, than mere material. God Himself ending your life is a pretty big honour, actually. Just recall that God never changed His mind.

Christ is pretty brutal and awesome, by all accounts, and several of His parables/prophecies are bleak. Just this Sunday past (16th of Ordinary Time), Christ said it's better to let the weeds (evil people) grow up with the true grain (righteous people) in the field (the moral life/Kingdom of Heaven), so that the weeds can be easily identified at the End of the Harvest (apocalypse), uprooted, and cast into the fire. Christ our Lord isn't the loving cuddlebunny of modern portraiture. He came to "bring a sword", as it were.

[Tankbuster]

St. Irenaeus of Lyons categorically listed the canon books of the Old and New Testament of God in his "Adversus Haereses" (Against the Heresies) in the middle of the 2nd century. Interestingly for denominational purposes, he included Tobit as canon. He had no "official" Church-approved list, but he said that all Christians and their bishops across the world "agree to this order and arrangement". It's either in Book I or Book II of the treatise... look for yourself, any who doubt: http://newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm !

That's not entirely accurate. Irenaeus was the first to assert that Matthew Mark Luke and John were canonical scripture, but he did not engage in listing the rest of the New Testament canon (nor the Old Testament, since as far as I know that was obviously already done). He says Christians agree on the fact that these 4 gospels are canonical (which is obviously stil an exagerration as Marcion and others did not agree).

For a broader summation of New Testament canon we need to look at the Muratorian canon (end Second Century) which lists 23 out of 27 books in the New Testament, though it also contains some which are not (the Apocalypse of Peter, for instance).

A long story is told through many media. Focusing on when Satan did what he did and why would be out of keeping with the entire tome.

Considering the role of Satan is absolutely central in modern Christian doctrine and in the New Testament particularly, where Jesus seems to be meeting Satan everywhere he goes, what's conspicuously absent from the Old Testament is any point where it is actually explained that this Satan guy is actually God's cosmic adversary and the conclusion of this epic battle is going to be the single most important thing to ever happen.
The reason Satan is hardly ever mentioned in the Old Testament as God's cosmic adversary, is by the way why Jews don't believe in the devil.

You'd almost think this Satan stuff was not part of original Jewish beliefs

[The spartan]

Christ our Lord isn't the loving cuddlebunny of modern portraiture. He came to "bring a sword", as it were.

I thought Christ's benchmarks were tolerance, love, and forgiveness?

[Helm]

I thought Christ's benchmarks were tolerance, love, and forgiveness?

Also judgement, justice and retribution. Though that was already a part of the Jewish religion anyway no need to bring anymore.

[Tankbuster]

Put the birth narrative of Jesus in Matthew on the left, put the birth narrative of Jesus in Luke on the right. They are completely different. Ditto for the last words of Jesus on the cross, the story of Peter and the Three Crows, the resurrection stories, and any number of points where you put the different gospels side by side.

These aren't necessarily deal-breakers, like Squiggle says, but to say that these are not contradictions and different stories (as literalists and harmonizers say) is a bit rich.

However, in all my years of Bible reading and studying I've noticed few; if any that couldn't be explained with some proper examination.

When Biblical literalists say "proper examination", they tend to mean "any any all possible ways we can think off, no matter how convoluted, to make the story make sense".

For instance, it's possible that Luke and John and Mark just forgot to mention the earthquake and a city-wide resurrection of the dead in Jerusalem and that's why only Matthew put it in... but it's just more likely that this is an error on Matthew's part.

[basics]

" Put the birth narrative of Jesus in Matthew on the left, put the birth narrative of Jesus in Luke on the right. They are completely different. Ditto for the last words of Jesus on the cross, the story of Peter and the Three Crows, the resurrection stories, and any number of points where you put the different gospels side by side. "

Tankbuster,

For sure there are differences in the narrative around and after Jesus' birth but when looked into these there is nothing contradictory at all. I think that if people understood that the two books cover a little more than the hours of His birth then one can see as it unravels, the two writers in no way contradict each other. However if you want to specify any particular points around it please do so.

The ones you quote above about His last words in my understanding were " It is finished." Without referring to my Bible if you have a different version then say what they are. As for Peter and crows, I take it you mean when the cock crows three times he, Peter, would deny Him is that he did indeed deny knowledge of Him. The resurrection stories do contain what appears differences but in those we also must accept that Mathew and John were possibly the only persons of the four writers who were there as Luke got his information as did Mark, second even third hand.

I mean the latter two were not Jews but later converts and when Luke investigated the stories regarding the resurrection we don't know exactly from whom his version came. Mark of course as my understanding is was a convert via his mother. Nonetheless you know that any witnesses to anything will always see things differently but the important thing here is that the Holy Spirit has not conspired to hide these differences because the context and flow remain constant.