Bible 'contradictions'

[theophilus777]

Probably because back in the day of early Christianity, people didn't look at the Christian scriptures the same as today. They were trying to compile all they could (and then weed out what they though was heretical ). They weren't worried about it being perfect.

The contradicting part i imagine is because it's written by two different people who may or may not have been actual witnesses. You know the old adage that two people can see the same event but have two completely different stories.

This defies everything we do know about the time, the era, and the way the Gospels came about and were used.

 

[theophilus777]

1) I enjoy actually engaging with the biblical texts, and having spirited conversations over what they mean. And talking about conflicts within the text can be a very fruitful dimension of such engagement.

Exactly why apparent contradictions are Divinely inspired. They make us look more closely.

 

[theophilus777]

Which is by and large the fault of Protestantism for allowing the common person to even read or translate the text. Still, that's a cop out: There are millions of ways to read the Bible and not even Christians agree on how to interpret it. Everyone is always wrong but nobody will ever be right. It's a continual movement of the goal posts.

Emphasis added by me. This is perfectly in line with what scripture reveals, and again a testament to Divine inspiration. People couldn't have possibly planned this outcome! God has a wonderful sense of humor

 

[ob77]

Jesus is God's Word, as per the gospel of John.

The anthology you call the Bible is not, and to call it thus strikes me as quite idolatrous to begin with.
(And before you quote 2 Tim at me: context matters; that epistle resolves the question of whether Christians ought to keep reading the Jewish scriptures, nothing more.)

As I said: admitting that Jesus did NOT ride on two donkeys, and Matthew just blundered, does NOT jeopardize Christianity, Christian theology, the Bible, or even the gospel's reliability. It's a trivial mistake, and admitting it won't shatter anybody's faith.

The fundamentalist insistence on conceiving of the Bible in the same manner as muslims conceive of the Qur'an, however, may indeed jeopardize the faith, driving away people who are NOT willing to engage in intellectual bankruptcy for the sake of defending a conception of the Bible as "GOD'S INFALLIBLE WORD" that is not even substantiated by the good book itself. There is a reason why the Bible names all of the different human authors collected in its diverse texts. This is not a single text supposedly written by a deity. It's an anthology, bearing the marks of the human authors' diverse styles, viewpoints, theologies and conceptions -and to deny that is to be unable to read it properly.

The scriptures you refer to are not "jewish", for Jew and Hebrew are not one and the same. The very fact that you even mention it speaks volumes of your lack of knowledge of the subject. Jew is a political and geographical term used for those living in and around Judea, which did not exist at the time of the writing of the oldest books of the Bible. Job is the oldest. Genesis is a Greek word oddly enough, even though the text was written in Hebrew. Genesis means "generations" - the generations of Adam and not mankind.
Judea did not come along till well after Adam and the flood of Noah's day.
The old testament is the fountainhead of the Hebrew language, nothing was written before it. Try to find a major player in the Bible who claims to be jewish. Its not Paul, who said he was of the tribe of Benjamin, but not a jew. It was not Christ, for He could not have possibly even been mistaken for being of Judea, since He was a Nazarene. Most people have a pavlovian response when they hear the word "jew". It is not based in reality, nor is it historically accurate. The Bible is the family history of the adamic race solely, and not of mankind in total.

 

[LoAmmi]

Genesis is a Greek word oddly enough, even though the text was written in Hebrew.

And amazingly, the book actually has a Hebrew name that doesn't mean "Genesis" so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this.

 

[theophilus777]

Ok so what's the Hebrew name for what we call Genesis? And what does it mean?

 

[LoAmmi]

Bereshit which is "in the beginning" basically.

 

[Zoness]

Emphasis added by me. This is perfectly in line with what scripture reveals, and again a testament to Divine inspiration. People couldn't have possibly planned this outcome! God has a wonderful sense of humor

It would more wonderful if there wasn't so much violence over that one idea. Interestingly enough it seems to give weight to the absurdist concept; if there is a God in the universe, he will be beyond our understanding so there is simply not point...don't waste your time.

Cynical, but worth thinking about.

 

[gord44]

This defies everything we do know about the time, the era, and the way the Gospels came about and were used.

Right on. That's what I figured.

 

[lost999]

It would more wonderful if there wasn't so much violence over that one idea. Interestingly enough it seems to give weight to the absurdist concept; if there is a God in the universe, he will be beyond our understanding so there is simply not point...don't waste your time.

Cynical, but worth thinking about.

The bolded is the same conclusion I have came to, except I am fairly confident God does exist. The nature of God is impossible for me, or anyone else for that matter, to comprehend.

The bible has failed. If that book was inspired, why is it so ambiguous? If God were to inspire a text, I'd have to conclude it would have been written at a higher standard.

For me, the bible has a lot of great things to be taken away from it, but is not the inspired word of God.

 

[Zoness]

The bolded is the same conclusion I have came to, except I am fairly confident God does exist. The nature of God is impossible for me, or anyone else for that matter, to comprehend.

The bible has failed. If that book was inspired, why is it so ambiguous? If God were to inspire a text, I'd have to conclude it would have been written at a higher standard.

For me, the bible has a lot of great things to be taken away from it, but is not the inspired of God.

You sound like me; my Deist position tends to be fueled by my absurdism. To me, its not as big of a leap believing in a creator as it is giving that creator a personality and motive and culturally inspired opinions (morality etc.). That's where the buck stops. If we were really meant to understand God and he wanted us to understand his fullness in this lifetime, he would have given us the means to do so. Not ambiguous holy texts from many religions and many different time periods.

 

[oi_antz]

For me, the bible has a lot of great things to be taken away from it, but is not the inspired of God.

But, it is a record of observations and thoughts of people who believed that they were inspired by God. What makes you think that the bible is supposed to have been inspired by God, and what does that mean to you that is different from what I just said?

 

[lost999]

But, it is a record of observations and thoughts of people who believed that they were inspired by God. What makes you think that the bible is supposed to have been inspired by God, and what does that mean to you that is different from what I just said?

Exactly, it was written by people who believed that they were inspired by God, not people who were.

If the bible is supposed to be the way God is trying to communicate to humanity, and an authority over ones life, it should be the actual inspired word of God, and nothing less.

I think there are wonderful moral lessons to be taken out of the bible, and a lot of wisdom that can enhance ones life, but that seems to be as far as it goes.

 

[oi_antz]

Exactly, it was written by people who believed that they were inspired by God, not people who were.

If the bible is supposed to be the way God is trying to communicate to humanity, and an authority over ones life, it should be the actual inspired word of God, and nothing less.

I think there are wonderful moral lessons to be taken out of the bible, and a lot of wisdom that can enhance ones life, but that seems to be as far as it goes.

God communicates to humanity in spirit, not by static lines on a piece of paper.

 

[lost999]

God communicates to humanity in spirit, not by static lines on a piece of paper.

Exactly.

The bible is useless than, and there is no need for people to quote passages from it for authoritative purposes.

 

[oi_antz]

Exactly.

The bible is useless than, and there is no need for people to quote passages from it for authoritative purposes.

I don't think that is a logical conclusion. It contains statements of events that originate from witnesses. Those statements should be considered more authoritative than the statements people make of events that have not originated from witnesses. Also, the thoughts of people who have faith in God can be useful for determining whether one's own thoughts are consistent with the same spirit. So I am of the opinion that it is a very useful document for the study of God, especially as He has been involved with Jewish and Christian cultures.

 

[lost999]

I don't think that is a logical conclusion. It contains statements of events that originate from witnesses. Those statements should be considered more authoritative than the statements people make of events that have not originated from witnesses. Also, the thoughts of people who have faith in God can be useful for determining whether one's own thoughts are consistent with the same spirit. So I am of the opinion that it is a very useful document for the study of God, especially as He has been involved with Jewish and Christian cultures.

So, you do believe that the bible is a way of God communicating to humanity than. The bible is the thoughts of these witnesses, written down on paper, which are then used to make comparisons for consistency.

Why would those who had participated in writing the bible be given the nod on having exclusive access to God, and not anyone else, especially if they have no proof that their thoughts were really inspired by God?

How are we to conclude that the writers of the bible were actual witnesses of God?

If the authors of the bible were witnesses, I would want to believe they would give us a more reasonable text to work with, that was more precise, and not ambiguous/confusing.

 

[oi_antz]

So, you do believe that the bible is a way of God communicating to humanity than.

I believe God can communicate to humanity however He prefers.

The bible is the thoughts of these witnesses, written down on paper, which are then used to make comparisons for consistency.

You might choose to do that. I said that I compare my own thoughts and that of others to those of the people who had the closest recorded proximity to Jesus. I look for the consistency of the spirit of what is being said, and you should also note that I measure what is said against my own perception of what The Holy Spirit says. So I judge what is said in the bible against what God tells me, and I don't see any contradiction there either.

Why would those who had participated in writing the bible be given the nod on having exclusive access to God, and not anyone else, especially if they have no proof that their thoughts were really inspired by God?

I don't think that is true. What makes you believe that?

How are we to conclude that the writers of the bible were actual witnesses of God?

What is the alternative?

If the authors of the bible were witnesses, I would want to believe they would give us a more reasonable text to work with, that was more precise, and not ambiguous/confusing.

I think you should appreciate the value of what they have given us, and try to understand that they are not perfect people either. Also you should consider that valuable records might have been destroyed or hidden during the persecution. But there is enough information in what we have to be able to form solid faith. People had faith in God before the scriptures were written. I don't know why you are complaining about it.

 

[ForJesusChrist]

Challenge accepted!

In Icons of Power, Henry VIII used Leviticus 20:21 to annul his marriage. This contradicted with Genesis 38, famous verse against masturbation.

Henry VIII (28 June 1491 – 28 January 1547), way before King James Bible. If I remember my history lessons correctly, Western Europe was Catholics until Henry VIII started his own church. In other words, they used the same Bible. It would be another hundred years before James wised up and translated the Latin/RC Bible to English.


https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+20:21
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis+38-8&version=NIV

?

 

[lost999]

My own personal frustrations with the bible came from not understanding what to take literally, allegorically, poetic, historical, and so forth. People rationalize everything out of the bible to make it fit their own belief system. I need something with less plasticity to work with. All plasticity does is causes doubt.

It seems as if everyone has a different way of interpreting scripture. I just reached a point were it made no sense to me, and found it more reasonable to believe God exists, and draw the line there.

For all that feel they understand the bible, good for you; I wish I had the capacity to understand.