Are there contradictions in the Bible?

Reluctant Theologian said:

I have no problems when 'errors' or 'contradictions' are found. The best texts we have now are copies of copies of copies; texts have a history, they underwent editing etc. A whole science (textual criticism) exists with the sole purpose of trying to discern what would be most likely the original text. All kinds of manuscript variants exist.

Does I still see Gods provision and guidance and inspiration in all of that? Yes .. Is it sufficiently reliable to know Gods plan for salvation? Yes ... but does that mean that the best approximate texts we have now are inerrant? No ...

Simple example:

1 Kings 4:26

Solomon also had 40,000 stalls of horses for his chariots, and 12,000 horsemen.​

2 Chronicles 9:25

Solomon had 4,000 stalls for horses and chariots, and 12,000 horsemen, and he stationed them in the chariot cities and with the king in Jerusalem.​

​

As you may know, of all the books in the TNK/OT, Chronicles was written last - it's a reflective summary of Israel's past. This obviously is a copying error somewhere down the line. But it definitely is an error in the best text we have now.

My faith does not depend on the current Bible text's inerrancy.

Click to expand...

Yes, there are indeed copying errors, and that's why we are thankful for the preservation of thousands of manuscripts, which can be compared.

Despite these scribal errors, the Bible remains intact, as can be seen from the Dead Sea scrolls.

Reluctant Theologian said:

Others are more difficult to explain/reconcile:

Matthew 27:3-5

Then when Judas, his betrayer, saw that Jesus was condemned, he changed his mind and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, saying, 'I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.' They said, 'What is that to us? See to it yourself.' And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself.​

Acts 1:18

Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.​

​

These accounts differ in:
- who bought the field
- what happened to the thirty pieces of silver
- how Judas actually died

I do not know a satisfactory way of reconciling these inconsistencies without substantial creative/forced interpretations of the text.

Click to expand...

I thought the explanation for this one was quite simple, and uncomplicated.
Matthew 27:6-10
6 But the chief priests took the silver pieces and said, “It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, because they are the price of blood.” 7 And they consulted together and bought with them the potter’s field, to bury strangers in. 8 Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.
9 Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of Him who was priced, whom they of the children of Israel priced, 10 and gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord directed me.”

"this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness" does not automatically translate to "Judas brought the field".

Judas hanged himself.
The rope broke, and he broke.
There is no reason to assume that hanging oneself prevents one from falling to the bottom of the cliff below.

What do you find hard to tie together?

public hermit said:

Here's a contradiction: God commands the wandering Hebrews to not commit murder and then commands them to commit murder by killing everything: men, women, children, and animals.

Click to expand...

That's a good one.
We should hang all the executioners for murder.
What do you think about that?

CoreyD said:

That's a good one.
We should hang all the executioners for murder.
What do you think about that?

Click to expand...

Are you asking about the death penalty? An eye for an eye? I'm not a fan. Life is too precious to make an error in judgment w/someone's life. All the accurate instances could never make up for the inaccurate ones (assuming there is a probability somebody innocent will be put to death by error or by design).

I think Christ showed a better way. He didn't take life in order to secure his own. He gave his life to secure that of others. What that means for us and how we treat hardened offenders is up for discussion, but it has to be an altogether different approach from- kill the killer.

But yeah, there are contradictory moral imperatives present in the scriptures. If we use Christ as our interpretive key, the problem disappears. If we think the scriptures must be wholly accurate and harmonious, i.e., without error or disagreement, then the problem persists, imo.

public hermit said:

Are you asking about the death penalty? An eye for an eye? I'm not a fan. Life is too precious to make an error in judgment w/someone's life.

Click to expand...

I agree that oftentimes justice is perverted, and their is no perfect system in this world.
I guess that is why some have done away with the death penalty.
However, some believe once there is absolute certainty, for heinous crimes, then the person should be put to death.
That however, is left to them.

The thing about morals, is that we are not very good at deciding those.
Our moral compass has no fixed standard.
For example, we are against the death penalty, until someone brutally rapes our five year old daughter, dismembers her, and places body parts in our wife's bag... or something else.

The creator, on the other hand, is not swayed by emotion, but judges based on set standards of justice, and righteousness. Not to mention, God is not limited in knowledge, understanding and wisdom.
So, when God determines that someone should be removed, that is a just action, which is not the same as murder.

To illustrate... what would happen if all the sadistic serial rapists, and murderers were all put in jail, and the government was looking for more staff to man the jails, would you take the job?
Now, imagine that men like Al Capone, and other Mafia kingpins, Ku Klux Klan, ... just imagine all the real sickos crammed into jail cells all over the world.
Can you imagine the terror, that would be in the hearts of the entire world of people?

People sleep better, knowing that animals are not liable to break free and do harm to them or their loved ones.

A similar situation could have existed when the nation of Israel was given the promised land, but God did not put them through that.
They were actually to dwell in peace, because God was the one giving them the land.

Imagine a father, giving his son a room to sleep in where there are all sorts of poisonous snakes, scorpions, etc.
No. A good father makes sure his children are comfortable.
God took care of the promised land for his children, and yes, war is ugly, but that is what the nation faced from their enemies.
Wiping out nations was not only a matter of war. It was also serving justice to a blood guilty people, who were guilty of detestable practices.

Executing justice is not murder.

public hermit said:

All the accurate instances could never make up for the inaccurate ones (assuming there is a probability somebody innocent will be put to death by error or by design).

I think Christ showed a better way. He didn't take life in order to secure his own. He gave his life to secure that of others. What that means for us and how we treat hardened offenders is up for discussion, but it has to be an altogether different approach from- kill the killer.

Click to expand...

Are we talking about the same person?
This guy?
Exodus 23:20-23
20 “Behold, I send an Angel before you to keep you in the way and to bring you into the place which I have prepared. 21 Beware of Him and obey His voice; do not provoke Him, for He will not pardon your transgressions; for My name is in Him. 22 But if you indeed obey His voice and do all that I speak, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. 23 For My Angel will go before you and bring you in to the Amorites and the Hittites and the Perizzites and the Canaanites and the Hivites and the Jebusites; and I will cut them off.

What about what Jesus himself said when on earth? Matthew 24:29-42

...and what will be.
Revelation 19:11-16
11 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. 12 His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. 13 He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses. 15 Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

Jesus came on earth to save sinners, but please don't see Jesus as someone different to his father. There are, as the saying goes... "Like father. like son."
Remember. Jesus said... “I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me." John 5:30

public hermit said:

But yeah, there are contradictory moral imperatives present in the scriptures. If we use Christ as our interpretive key, the problem disappears. If we think the scriptures must be wholly accurate and harmonious, i.e., without error or disagreement, then the problem persists, imo.

Click to expand...

I can see you are mistaken, but that's okay. There is always room for correction.
The problem usually lies in mistaken views and mistaken understanding. Not the scriptures.

CoreyD said:

I can see you are mistaken, but that's okay. There is always room for correction.
The problem usually lies in mistaken views and mistaken understanding. Not the scriptures

Click to expand...

If God told you to go kill people, would you do it? I wouldn't. I'd automatically assume God's not going to ask me to murder. Does God change in that way, wanting some to kill but others to not-kill? I don't think so. Would Jesus tell me to kill someone? No. Like I said, the confusion goes away once Christ is the interpretive key. Whatever else there might be is subjected to him, including the way we understand God and what God desires from us. That's how I see it. Like you intimated, we disagree.

public hermit said:

If God told you to go kill people, would you do it? I wouldn't. I'd automatically assume God's not going to ask me to murder. Does God change in that way, wanting some to kill but others to not-kill? I don't think so. Would Jesus tell me to kill someone? No. Like I said, the confusion goes away once Christ is the interpretive key. Whatever else there might be is subjected to him, including the way we understand God and what God desires from us. That's how I see it. Like you intimated, we disagree.

Click to expand...

If you were a Roman, you would not say this.
Is you were a Hebrew, you would not say this either.
If you were born into a culture in a particular environment, that is what will shape you.
God works with what he has.

If I were a Hebrew, yes, if the king asked for support to carry out a war campaign against the Philistines, for example, I would hope to be like David, rather than the cowards that ran when Goliath came out.

God will not ask you to kill anyone. Nor fight wars... because you are not in a nation that learns war.
In fact, Micah 4:1-4 says this:
1 Now it shall come to pass in the latter days
That the mountain of the Lord’s house
Shall be established on the top of the mountains,
And shall be exalted above the hills;
And peoples shall flow to it.
2 Many nations shall come and say,
“Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
To the house of the God of Jacob;
He will teach us His ways,
And we shall walk in His paths.”
For out of Zion the law shall go forth,
And the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
3 He shall judge between many peoples,
And rebuke strong nations afar off;
They shall beat their swords into plowshares,
And their spears into pruning hooks;
Nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
Neither shall they learn war anymore.
4 But everyone shall sit under his vine and under his fig tree,
And no one shall make them afraid;
For the mouth of the Lord of hosts has spoken.

Also, the old covenant and the new are not the same.
Yes, things do change, under God. He is not rigid like some of us.
We conform to fit into his purpose. he is the potter, and we are the clay.

Jesus was a good soldier back then.
The Assyrian army found that out, when they went up against Hezekiah. 2 Kings 19:35

Did you know...?
The first righteous man that went to war was Abraham.
Genesis 14:13-16
13 Then one who had escaped came and told Abram the Hebrew, for he dwelt by the terebinth trees of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol and brother of Aner; and they were allies with Abram. 14 Now when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his three hundred and eighteen trained servants who were born in his own house, and went in pursuit as far as Dan. 15 He divided his forces against them by night, and he and his servants attacked them and pursued them as far as Hobah, which is north of Damascus. 16 So he brought back all the goods, and also brought back his brother Lot and his goods, as well as the women and the people.

Yes, the scriptures appear to conflict on morals, to some, but as I said, this is due to persons' misunderstandings, and not scripture.
It's okay we disagree. No harm done, to each other.

public hermit said:

Here's a contradiction: God commands the wandering Hebrews to not commit murder and then commands them to commit murder by killing everything: men, women, children, and animals.

Click to expand...

I hear what you are saying, but in my mind there is a difference between murder and killing. If a police officer has to shoot a bank robber, that is not considered murder. So the 10 commandments say to not murder (unlawful killing).

The killing of men, women, children, and animals is a tough concept to consider. I started a thread about it here.

Best wishes,
KT

tonychanyt said:

Can you state the two contradictory propositions?

Click to expand...

Let me put it this way

1. The violence at Jezreel was not sin (Kings)

2. The violence at Jezreel was sin (Hosea).

I think there are assumptions about the nature of God built into these two statements:

The first statement assumes a God that does not have sinful acts in his heart that he wants done.

The second assumes a God that does not punish people for actions that aren’t sin.

tonychanyt said:

Sure. But they were different sets of violence.

Click to expand...

I thought both were referring to the violence committed by Jehu and his folks. But I have been wrong many times in the past! Could you please explain?