The Biblical Contradiction Thread

[Hope]

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 know ever that the details and claims therein didn't contain mistakes or lies as part of the narrative? This has to be a risk: right?

Would you argue the same concerns when dealing with scientific and historical documents dating from comparable periods?

[Gordon]

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.

No you aren't: you are employing fallacious reasoning by making entirely spurious comparisons with other documents rather than those you are defending.   

[Gordon]

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

Tu quoque, again.

The argument that DU has made here has been being made for nigh-on 2000 years, yet without any success.

Says who, and in what ways do they fail?

[Gordon]

Would you argue the same concerns when dealing with scientific and historical documents dating from comparable periods?

I'm not defending other documents from any period: but yes, if I were I'd be concerned about mistakes and lies in any document, and especially where the details and claims involved were wholly anecdotal and highly unusual.

 

[Nearly Sane]

When I read these threads on meaning treated as if it is a singularity, I want to cry out in my most Barthesian tone 'Did the author die in vain?'

[wigginhall]

As my wife says after a few drinks, meaning is a cline.

[jeremyp]

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.

Here are your problems.

Firstly, the original text of the books of the Bible no longer exists. We only have copies and we do not know how many times removed from the original each copy is. Mistakes and deliberate editing inevitably creep in. Scholars have reconstructed what they think are the original words by careful analysis of extant manuscripts, but there is no guarantee that they have got it right.

Secondly, the New Testament was written in a language called Koine Greek. Nobody today speaks that language. When we translate a word in Koine Greek into English, we are making an educated guess as to what that word meant to first century inhabitants of the Middle East. We almost certainly miss some nuances of meaning and the translation may not capture the idea completely.

[jeremyp]

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

I'll give you Julius Caesar, but we know precisely what Newton and Galileo were talking about, at least, as far as their scientific ideas were concerned. They used an invention called mathematics (you may have heard of it) to describe their ideas. The language of mathematics is designed to be precise notation for expressing mathematical ideas.

[jeremyp]

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.

I think you'll find that the relevant scholars argue endlessly about the precise meaning of various first century documents.

[Bubbles]

Here are your problems.

Firstly, the original text of the books of the Bible no longer exists. We only have copies and we do not know how many times removed from the original each copy is. Mistakes and deliberate editing inevitably creep in. Scholars have reconstructed what they think are the original words by careful analysis of extant manuscripts, but there is no guarantee that they have got it right.

Secondly, the New Testament was written in a language called Koine Greek. Nobody today speaks that language. When we translate a word in Koine Greek into English, we are making an educated guess as to what that word meant to first century inhabitants of the Middle East. We almost certainly miss some nuances of meaning and the translation may not capture the idea completely.

The word "love" springs to mind.

Apparently in Greek they  had different meanings to the word love, which doesn't translate in the word love.

http://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/marriage-and-family-the-missing-dimension/the-different-kinds-of-love

http://danielbwallace.com/2012/10/08/fifteen-myths-about-bible-translation/

[Bubbles]

This is an interesting link.
A Christian goes through what he sees as mistranslations

http://www.ittybittycomputers.com/Essays/Mistrans.htm#Relationship

If you scroll up, it lists them and claims that carpenter was a mistranslation

[Sassy]

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!

No contradiction... Old Testament = Old Covenenat.

                            New Testament = New Covenant.

Before the 10 commandments man sinned did not know it.
After 10 commandments man convicted of sin and did know it.
After New Covenant in Christ man sins paid for and now the righteousness of God through Christ Jesus.
Cannot be earned or obtained because all were sinners. It is a free gift of God.
So now all men the righteousness of God.

Abraham before the LAW....


King James Bible Genesis 15:6.
And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

You haven't found any discrepancies just a complete lack of knowledge and understanding concerning the bible, God and his people. You see before the law God accounted righteousness to Abraham because he believed what he had said.
After the law God again accounts righteousness to believers. Having removed the condemnation and punishment through Christ believers who believe what God has said about his son become the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus.

May be one day you might learn some biblical truth before you search for errors which really only exist in the mind of those who lack the wisdom of God.

[Sassy]

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?

As God cannot sin how do you precieve the word 'repent'.

He regretted having  made man... do you not think...
The Son of man...human and a sinner that he needs to repent.

Regret and confessing sin is two different things.

Look at the wording and anyone with knowledge of God knows that  the word repent is to feel sorry/regret.
The first was to regret making man.
The second tells you that God does not sin so is not like man who needs to repent.
We all do things for the good of others which we does not always make us feel ok.

[Hope]

This is an interesting link.
A Christian goes through what he sees as mistranslations

http://www.ittybittycomputers.com/Essays/Mistrans.htm#Relationship

If you scroll up, it lists them and claims that carpenter was a mistranslation

And interestingly, if you look at places with a similar level of development as 1st Century Palestine, the stonemasons and the carpenters are often the same people.  Can't remember which version I saw it in, but I remember the term 'artisan' being used in one.

[Sassy]

"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!

Firstly NO LAW. If Abraham had killed his son he would not have committed a sin so not tempted.
So Abraham was not tempted to do evil.
Gods promise was to make Abraham a great nation through his son Isaac and God wanted you and I to know that Abraham did not love God just because of his promise. But we see Abraham believed that even if he killed the son he loved he knew God could still fulfill his promise that even death does not prevent God from being true to Abraham.

We see that God does not allow Abraham to kill Isaac. A test is not the same as tempting to do evil.
As the covenant of the law did not exist there was no sin or temptation to cause Abraham to sin.

As we see God is always faithful and no matter what happens we see the people of God have faith in Gods person and word.

[Hope]

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?

Khat, its perhaps worth, even in the KJV that you use, to compare the construction that the word 'repent' fits into in your two examples.  Genesis 6:6 says '... it repented the Lord ...'; Numbers 23:19 says '... neither the son of man, that he should repent ...'.  Now, what repented in Genesis 6 - it can't have been the Lord, as 'the Lord' is the object of the clause; in Numbers 23, 'he' (the Lord) is the subject of the clause.  That said, its worth noting that the Hebrew word used in Genesis 6 is וַיִּנָּ֣חֶם; the Hebrew word used in Numbers 23 is וְיִתְנֶחָ֑ם.  Clearly they are from the same root, but the first seems to be used to refer to regret, the latter to changing one's mind.


I'd also like to point out more generally that one doesn't do scientific research in isolation by, for instance, reading a single document in a single language.  Most scientists will seek out several parallel and comparative documents, and if necessary try to get those that have been originally written in a different language to their mother language re-translated by a native speaker of that language - perhaps a colleague.  The same applies to Biblical studies, and it should be common practice to compare different translations of the material, and - as appropriate - refer to the original languages.

[floo]

Firstly NO LAW. If Abraham had killed his son he would not have committed a sin so not tempted.
So Abraham was not tempted to do evil.
Gods promise was to make Abraham a great nation through his son Isaac and God wanted you and I to know that Abraham did not love God just because of his promise. But we see Abraham believed that even if he killed the son he loved he knew God could still fulfill his promise that even death does not prevent God from being true to Abraham.

We see that God does not allow Abraham to kill Isaac. A test is not the same as tempting to do evil.
As the covenant of the law did not exist there was no sin or temptation to cause Abraham to sin.

As we see God is always faithful and no matter what happens we see the people of God have faith in Gods person and word.

Abraham committed a crime by being prepared to kill Isaac because of a voice in his head. If he had killed him he would have committed murder, there are no if and buts about that!

[Hope]

Abraham committed a crime by being prepared to kill Isaac because of a voice in his head.

Not sure that one can commit a crime by merely being prepared to do something.  The crime is the committing.  For instance, if I was to be prepared to help my wife commit suicide as a result of some horrific health condition she had - and she died from the condition before she could do the act, I would not be guilty of any crime.  Furthermore, until a given action is deemed to be a criminal act, anyone performing that act can't be deemed to be a criminal.

[floo]

Not sure that one can commit a crime by merely being prepared to do something.  The crime is the committing.  For instance, if I was to be prepared to help my wife commit suicide as a result of some horrific health condition she had - and she died from the condition before she could do the act, I would not be guilty of any crime.  Furthermore, until a given action is deemed to be a criminal act, anyone performing that act can't be deemed to be a criminal.

He was supposed have put poor Isaac in the sacrifice position, which must have scared the wits out of him, so that was abuse.

What in heck's name has assisted suicide got to do with this?

[Khatru]

You haven't found any discrepancies just a complete lack of knowledge and understanding concerning the bible, God and his people.

So that's why I'm not qualified to pass comment on the Bible's flaws?

You missed out some other reasons that Christians often give:

I don't understand because I need to know how to translate Hebrew and Greek
I don't understand because I need to view it from a child's perspective
I don't understand because, unlike you, I'm not a "true Christian"
I don't understand because I'm not a biblical scholar
I don't understand because I took the scripture out of context.
I don't understand because it means something other than what it actually says
I don't understand because it's an allegory
I don't understand because my mind is far too feeble to comprehend your god's truth
I don't understand because I've not been filled with the holy spirit

Then of course, we have the "we're not supposed to understand it because God works in mysterious ways"

All of the above are used by believers in their efforts to defend the contradiction and error found throughout the Bible. I have no doubt you've used some of them yourself.

May be one day you might learn some biblical truth before you search for errors which really only exist in the mind of those who lack the wisdom of God.

Will I be able to quote scriptures the way you do when your truth finally hits me?

In the meantime and while we're waiting, please consider these divine utterances:

al-Qu'ran

Surat Al-Ghashiyah

88:1 Has there reached you the report of the Overwhelming [event]?
88:2 [Some] faces, that Day, will be humbled,
88:3 Working [hard] and exhausted.
88:4 They will [enter to] burn in an intensely hot Fire.
88:5 They will be given drink from a boiling spring.
88:6 For them there will be no food except from a poisonous, thorny plant
88:7 Which neither nourishes nor avails against hunger.
88:8 [Other] faces, that Day, will show pleasure.
88:9 With their effort [they are] satisfied
88:10 In an elevated garden,
88:11 Wherein they will hear no unsuitable speech.
88:12 Within it is a flowing spring.
88:13 Within it are couches raised high
88:14 And cups put in place
88:15 And cushions lined up
88:16 And carpets spread around.
88:17 Then do they not look at the camels - how they are created?

There......Wasn't that great?

Did you feel your spirit soar when reading those words?  Do you agree that the above quoted wisdom warrants consideration alongside yours?

Or perhaps like me, you find it worthless and devoid of meaning because you don't acknowledge the source authority as being the one true god whose messenger is Mohammed.

I'll be pleased if you don't accept it because it may give you an idea of how I feel when I see your colonic squirts of scripture.

[Bubbles]

Abraham committed a crime by being prepared to kill Isaac because of a voice in his head. If he had killed him he would have committed murder, there are no if and buts about that!

.

There is lots of ifs and buts about that.

If I'm prepared to rob a bank, but never do it, have I committed a crime?

Or am I guilty only by the act of doing so? ( assuming I haven't prepared as in made concrete plans and put them into effect, to do so)

If no laws were in place at the time of Abraham about killing his son, then he hadn't committed a crime.

Hearing voices in your head, telling you to kill someone has never been illegal as far as I know. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filicide

I do know that mothers who killed babies under a year old wasn't always considered a crime.
It still isn't in some places today.


I read this

"The practice of infanticide has taken many forms. Child sacrifice to supernatural figures or forces, such as that believed to have been practiced in ancient Carthage, may be only the most notorious example in the ancient world. Anthropologist Laila Williamson notes that "Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunter gatherers to high civilizations, including our own ancestors. Rather than being an exception, then, it has been the rule."[6]:61

A frequent method of infanticide in ancient Europe and Asia was simply to abandon the infant, leaving it to die by exposure (i.e. hypothermia, hunger, thirst, or animal attack).[7][8] Infant abandonment still occurs in modern societies.[9]

In at least one island in Oceania, infanticide was carried out until the 20th century by suffocating the infant,[10] while in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica and in the Inca Empire it was carried out by sacrifice (see below)."


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide

How old was Abrahams son?

I'm not sure if it would have been considered a crime or not.

It depends on their laws at the time.

In the ancient world he might not have been considered as committing a crime.

[Khatru]

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.

Really?

Christians can't even agree on who their god is.

[Khatru]

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

I'm no expert on what Julius Caesar wrote but I'm pretty sure he never used the scientific methodology and observation that Galileo and Newton used when setting out their explanations.

In other words, unlike Julius, we can in fact be very sure indeed about what Galileo or Newton meant.

[Bubbles]

He was supposed have put poor Isaac in the sacrifice position, which must have scared the wits out of him, so that was abuse.

What in heck's name has assisted suicide got to do with this?

It's an example of where being prepared to do something but not doing it, isn't a crime.

[Bubbles]

Committing a crime doesn't necessarily  = doing something wrong.

Also being innocent of a crime doesn't always = being right.

Because laws are written by people and the change ( country to country let alone through time).

Of course now most of us would consider Abraham wrong for thinking of killing his son.

100 years ago homosexuality was considered a crime.

It isn't now.

What is a crime, and what is not, changes.

Even what people think is right changes.

But a crime is something "authorities" decide on.

What the authorities thought in Abrahams day, I'm not sure.

Sassy seems to think it was allowable.