The Biblical Contradiction Thread

[Khatru]

Found a contradiction in the Bible?

I've already touched on one with the two different lists of the Ten Commandments.

Please feel free to share any others here and perhaps a true believer or two may wish to correct the biblical errors.

In the meantime, here are a modest few:

"Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective."

James 5:16

vs

"As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one"

Romans 3:10

A clear contradiction.  James talks about the prayers of righteous men while Paul tells us that no one is righteous.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------

And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."

Genesis 6:6

vs

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"

Genesis says that God repented while Numbers says he doesn't repent.  Which scripture is correct?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am."

Genesis 22:1

vs

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man"

James 1:13

James tells us that God cannot tempt any man while Genesis tells us that God tempted a man.  Whoops!

[Bubbles]

Found a contradiction in the Bible?

I've already touched on one with the two different lists of the Ten Commandments.

Please feel free to share any others here and perhaps a true believer or two may wish to correct the biblical errors.

In the meantime, here are a modest few:

"Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective."

James 5:16

vs

"As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one"

Romans 3:10

A clear contradiction.  James talks about the prayers of righteous men while Paul tells us that no one is righteous.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------

And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."

Genesis 6:6

vs

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"

Genesis says that God repented while Numbers says he doesn't repent.  Which scripture is correct?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am."

Genesis 22:1

vs

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man"

James 1:13

James tells us that God cannot tempt any man while Genesis tells us that God tempted a man.  Whoops!

does it?

Which bit of Genesis are you referring to?

If it's the bit with Abraham he was tested wasn't he? Rather than tempted?

[Khatru]

does it?

Which bit of Genesis are you referring to?

If it's the bit with Abraham he was tested wasn't he? Rather than tempted?

That's the bit.

The KJV version which I grew up with says "tempt"

[Hope]

That's the bit.

The KJV version which I grew up with says "tempt"

So, if you came across a document dating from 1600-odd using a certain word in a bit of legislation that is still in currency, you'd take the word's 21st century meaning as the relevant meaning, or the 17th-century meaning?

[Sebastian Toe]

So, if you came across a document dating from 1600-odd using a certain word in a bit of legislation that is still in currency, you'd take the word's 21st century meaning as the relevant meaning, or the 17th-century meaning?

Which one would you take?

[Khatru]

So, if you came across a document dating from 1600-odd using a certain word in a bit of legislation that is still in currency, you'd take the word's 21st century meaning as the relevant meaning, or the 17th-century meaning?

The Bible I have says "tempt".  That's the word I'm goin with.

After all, I hear that the Bible is the inerrant word of the supreme cosmic mega being.

[OH MY WORLD!]

Good grief, we have been over this word before. Tempt had more than just the narrow definition we have today. When my KJV was translated, one of the definitions was trial. And this is the definition in Greek and Hebrew.

Now here is the proof that the definition has narrowed.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tempt

A smart person would want to know what the words meant in the day they were written. The word is used two ways in the Bible and if one accepts the definitions of that word when it was written, there is no contradiction and confusion. Confusion happens to the ones too lazy to look up the original definitions.

http://whatsaiththescripture.com/Fellowship/What.Bible.Says.Temptation.html

[Hope]

Which one would you take?

In a document written in the 17th century, I'd take the 17th century meaning.  I wouldn't impose a 21st century meaning on a 17th century document.

[Hope]

The Bible I have says "tempt".  That's the word I'm goin with.

Sorry, Khat, the Bible you have is largely a 1st century document which has ben translated into numerous languages over the subsequent centuries.  Aas you have pointed out the translation you choose to use is a 17th century translation into English.  The English language has changed quite considerably in the intervening 400+ years, especially in the last 100. If you choose to use a 400+ year-old translation you need to understand the vocabulay and grammar in a 400+-year old way, not in a 21st-century way.  That has nothing to do with Biblical studies and everything to do with historical linguistics.

After all, I hear that the Bible is the inerrant word of the supreme cosmic mega being.

Not sure what you mean by this last phrase, nor what you understand by the term 'inerrant', but the Bible (or at least the New Testament section of it) was originally written almost 2000 years ago - and translations of it have taken place several times over the years.

[jeremyp]

Sorry, Khat, the Bible you have is largely a 1st century document which has ben translated into numerous languages over the subsequent centuries.

So nobody can be really sure what the authors actually meant.

[Leonard James]

So nobody can be really sure what the authors actually meant.

Just as I have already pointed out umpteen times!

Unless what is written is unequivocal, nobody can claim certain knowledge of the meaning, despite claims of divine guidance.

[Khatru]

Sorry, Khat, the Bible you have is largely a 1st century document which has ben translated into numerous languages over the subsequent centuries.  Aas you have pointed out the translation you choose to use is a 17th century translation into English.  The English language has changed quite considerably in the intervening 400+ years, especially in the last 100. If you choose to use a 400+ year-old translation you need to understand the vocabulay and grammar in a 400+-year old way, not in a 21st-century way.  That has nothing to do with Biblical studies and everything to do with historical linguistics.

So what you're saying is that the supposed "word of God" is not to be found in any of the various different bibles we have.  Instead, I need to go right back to the original scrolls?

When it comes to reading scriptures, do you use the ancient scrolls?

Not sure what you mean by this last phrase, nor what you understand by the term 'inerrant', but the Bible (or at least the New Testament section of it) was originally written almost 2000 years ago - and translations of it have taken place several times over the years.

I guess you're one of those believers who accepts the fact that there are errors and contradictions in the Bible.  You'd be amazed how many believers claim it's error free.

[Shaker]

Sorry, Khat, the Bible you have is largely a 1st century document which has ben translated into numerous languages over the subsequent centuries.  Aas you have pointed out the translation you choose to use is a 17th century translation into English.  The English language has changed quite considerably in the intervening 400+ years, especially in the last 100. If you choose to use a 400+ year-old translation you need to understand the vocabulay and grammar in a 400+-year old way, not in a 21st-century way.  That has nothing to do with Biblical studies and everything to do with historical linguistics.
Not sure what you mean by this last phrase, nor what you understand by the term 'inerrant', but the Bible (or at least the New Testament section of it) was originally written almost 2000 years ago - and translations of it have taken place several times over the years.

We have abundant evidence that you avoid like the plague making any definite, concrete statements about the god you claim to believe in, but given the traditional attributes of such a deity, in trying to get across its message to humanity (a) why would it rely on written documents which (b) supposedly need to be translated, retranslated and translated again, not only from one language to another but within the same language at regular intervals to keep up with the evolution of said language, with all the opportunities for mistranslation and other forms of error that that process entails.

Seems like shoddy work on the part of this alleged deity, I must say.

[Khatru]

We have abundant evidence that you avoid like the plague making any definite, concrete statements about the god you claim to believe in, but given the traditional attributes of such a deity, in trying to get across its message to humanity (a) why would it rely on written documents which (b) supposedly need to be translated, retranslated and translated again, not only from one language to another but within the same language at regular intervals to keep up with the evolution of said language, with all the opportunities for mistranslation and other forms of error that that process entails.

Seems like shoddy work on the part of this alleged deity, I must say.

Absolutely! 

It links nicely with the "What we have here is failure to communicate" thread.

Here we have the all-powerful supreme cosmic mega being whose words and messages can't stand up to the vagaries of translation.

What this deity should have done is to endow his words with a permanence that no translation could change.  An omnipotent being could do that with greater ease than it takes for us to blink.

[Shaker]

Absolutely! 

It links nicely with the "What we have here is failure to communicate" thread.

Here we have the all-powerful supreme cosmic mega being whose words and messages can't stand up to the vagaries of translation.

What this deity should have done is to endow his words with a permanence that no translation could change.  An omnipotent being could do that with greater ease than it takes for us to blink.

On the 'Searching for God' thread just now Alan Burns opined that this sort of talk has humans knowing better than God and having better ideas of what to do and how to go on.

Well, yes, precisely - this is not exactly unexpected when the god that theists purport to believe is alleged by them to be powerful enough to create a universe but when push comes to shove wouldn't be left in charge of a whelk stall.

[OH MY WORLD!]

Jeremy,
How silly of you. Of course we can know what the authors meant, only a lazy goof off can't be bothered to look up what the meaning of  word was during the day.

[floo]

On the 'Searching for God' thread just now Alan Burns opined that this sort of talk has humans knowing better than God and having better ideas of what to do and how to go on.

Well, yes, precisely - this is not exactly unexpected when the god that theists purport to believe is alleged by them to be powerful enough to create a universe but when push comes to shove wouldn't be left in charge of a whelk stall.

An incompetent psycho, in other words!

[OH MY WORLD!]

The judgment of floo. Now that's a hoot!

[Dicky Underpants]

I guess you're one of those believers who accepts the fact that there are errors and contradictions in the Bible.  You'd be amazed how many believers claim it's error free.

There are some who, in a remarkable feat of disingenuity, claim that they believe that 'there are no errors in the original documents' (even if we don't possess any original documents, or exact copies of the same). This neatly sidesteps all problems of apparent contradiction in all subsequent languages, and in all examples of extant ancient manuscripts that we have. Truly a triumph of faith over reason.

However, I do accept in principle Hope's assertion that we can't automatically assume that the meaning of a 17th translation of a word in the scriptures is exactly the same as its meaning in modern English, and there is something to be said for going back to the context of the ancient languages if you can be really arsed about it. But as Jeremy and Len have succinctly pointed out, we can never be really sure what the original authors meant.

And yet - all that being said - there are certain definitive themes of contradiction throughout many parts of the Bible. The most notable in the NT is the contrast between the emphasis on faith as opposed to works, and vice-versa. The question of faith being the important element for 'salvation' is of course continually stressed in the writings of St Paul, though it is also present in some of the words ascribed to Jesus. The Epistle of James is notorious for expressing the completely contrary view. many Christians would want to downplay this (and Luther wanted the E of J excluded altogether). Unfortunately Jesus is also recorded as having stressed the absolute importance of 'works' for salvation on more than one occasion, with no mention of 'faith' at all (Matt 16 v27 and Matt 25 v31ff)

[Hope]

So nobody can be really sure what the authors actually meant.

In the same way that we can't really be sure what the likes of Newton, Galileo or Julius Caesar meant in their writings.

[Gordon]

In the same way that we can't really be sure what the likes of Newton, Galileo or Julius Caesar meant in their writings.

A lovely wee touch of tea-time tu quoque there, Hope.

[Hope]

So what you're saying is that the supposed "word of God" is not to be found in any of the various different bibles we have.  Instead, I need to go right back to the original scrolls?

It helps, in the same way that we can go back to ther original 'scrolls' of Julius Caesar or Newton, Galileo or the Venerable Bede, but more importantly, we need to use translatioos of the Bible that match our own language - so a French-speaker is unlikely to find an English translation that helpful.

When it comes to reading scriptures, do you use the ancient scrolls?

No, I use a translation of the Bible in modern, 20th/21st Century English, not a 17th century translation. 

I guess you're one of those believers who accepts the fact that there are errors and contradictions in the Bible.  You'd be amazed how many believers claim it's error free.

Actually, Khat, I accept that translations of the Bible - especially ones that use a different language to that which I use - can appear to be erroneous or contradictory, but when one actually studies the language of any translation and the context of the original authors audience, one can discover why people believe that there are contradictions.

[Hope]

But as Jeremy and Len have succinctly pointed out, we can never be really sure what the original authors meant.

It's odd that this argument is never used when dealing with documents written by other 1st century authors.

And yet - all that being said - there are certain definitive themes of contradiction throughout many parts of the Bible. The most notable in the NT is the contrast between the emphasis on faith as opposed to works, and vice-versa. The question of faith being the important element for 'salvation' is of course continually stressed in the writings of St Paul, though it is also present in some of the words ascribed to Jesus. The Epistle of James is notorious for expressing the completely contrary view. many Christians would want to downplay this (and Luther wanted the E of J excluded altogether). Unfortunately Jesus is also recorded as having stressed the absolute importance of 'works' for salvation on more than one occasion, with no mention of 'faith' at all (Matt 16 v27 and Matt 25 v31ff)

Yet, there is no contradiction in this area.  Both Jesus and Paul make it clear that faith is the most important aspect in regard to salvation.  But they also make it clear that faith, without the works that come as a result of it, is empty.  James, in his epistle, makes exactly the same point.  The argument that DU has made here has been being made for nigh-on 2000 years, yet without any success.

[Gordon]

Actually, Khat, I accept that translations of the Bible - especially ones that use a different language to that which I use - can appear to be erroneous or contradictory, but when one actually studies the language of any translation and the context of the original authors audience, one can discover why people believe that there are contradictions.

Even if you allow for translation issues, and in fact even if you found the source documents and were satisfied with the expert translation of these, how would you ever know that the details and claims therein didn't contain mistakes or lies as part of the narrative? This has to be a risk: right?

After all, accurately translated lies or mistakes (or even inaccurately translated mistakes and lies) would be still be mistakes or lies would they not? So these are real risks that, as far as I can see, you guys just don't want to acknowledge. 

[Hope]

A lovely wee touch of tea-time tu quoque there, Hope.

No, I'm just pointing out that, in order to understand what said folk mean, one has to study the language(s) in which they wrote and the culture(s) in which they lived.