Biblical Contradictions

[Tiberius]

How do you reconcile the contradictions in the Bible? Do you regard them as merely unimpoirtant details (it doesn't matter exactly how Judas died, whether he hang or fell and burst open, just that he died for his betrayal) or do you figure that the Bible contains no contradictions, and that anything that appears contradictory is just an illusion and simply requires the correct interpretation?

In my experience, to say that there are no contradictions usually requires one to perform mental gymnastics of such a degree that it seems unbelievable that anything requiring such gymnastics could be a factual account. But I won't say that it is wrong just because of this (although it does make me dubious as to the validity of the explanation thus reached). However, if someone proposes such an explanation, I'll ask that you back it up with some kind of evidence. I won't accept the "It's the only idea that fits in with a literal interpretation of the Bible, so it MUST be true" argument.

To get the ball rolling, here are a few examples of things that (to me) appear to be contradictory.

As mentioned before, what happened to Judas? How did he die, and what happened to the money he got from betraying Jesus?

When was Adam created? Before the animals or after them?

Has anyone seen God face to face?

And was it God or an angel who appeared to Moses in the burning bush?

Of course, don't feel limited to these only. Feel free to discuss any contradictions (or perceioved contradictions).

 

[98cwitr]

Let me google that for you

 

[drich0150]

(it doesn't matter exactly how Judas died, whether he hang or fell and burst open, just that he died for his betrayal)

Perhaps both are true. It has been said: cursed is the man who hangs from a tree. (Meaning no one would bury him.) so if He was left unburied then given enough time a decomposition, He would fall from his tree and burst open on the rocks of that potters field.

As mentioned before, what happened to Judas? How did he die, and what happened to the money he got from betraying Jesus

their was a standing Law that for bids any member of the synagogue from except blood money (even though they found a loop hole and offered it.) So after Judas hanged himself the field was purchased in his name with his 30 pieces of silver.

there was no need for a deep or detailed description of this because for the people in whom that account was written, it was common knowledge.

When was Adam created? Before the animals or after them?

In the account of gen 1 we are told that Man and animals were created on the same day.

Has anyone seen God face to face?

Anyone meaning who?? People? angels? Jesus? the devil??

And was it God or an angel who appeared to Moses in the burning bush?

If a postal worker(messenger) hands you a letter from the president/queen or whom ever informing you that your work is to be nationally recognized.. In Who's authority was that message delivered? Who's words were used? Who would you say commended your work, and will raise it up to a national level to be commended? was it The messenger? Do you think He has that power? or would true authority come from the author of those words?

If you told that story, would you say that a postman informed me that i was to be commended? or would you say that the president was nationally recognizing my work? which way would be the true/correct way to phrase your good news?

Of course, don't feel limited to these only.

No but i am assuming these are the best examples you have... Most of which can be explained if you care to remove yourself from a modern Anglo/English way of thinking. At 31 you should know that The bible wasn't written in the king James or what ever version you are trying to pin infallibility on. The words, phrases, culture, history, interpretations, number of viable manuscripts, all contribute to a particular translation.
So if you read scripture in any English version as you would a text book originally written in English you will find apparent flaws or holes. But again all one has to do is to consider the time period and the people in which these words were written, and understanding can be yours..

..if that is what you truly seek.

 

[MyHeroIsJesus]

How do you reconcile the contradictions in the Bible? Do you regard them as merely unimpoirtant details (it doesn't matter exactly how Judas died, whether he hang or fell and burst open, just that he died for his betrayal) or do you figure that the Bible contains no contradictions, and that anything that appears contradictory is just an illusion and simply requires the correct interpretation?

The Bible in it's entirety is God's revelation of salvation for all men through Jesus Christ, there is no salvific value in the details of how Judas died.

In my experience, to say that there are no contradictions usually requires one to perform mental gymnastics of such a degree that it seems unbelievable that anything requiring such gymnastics could be a factual account.

I know exactly what you are saying, but once God moves on you those gymnastic will become effortless. He does reveal wisdom and knowledge to those who abide in Him.

But I won't say that it is wrong just because of this (although it does make me dubious as to the validity of the explanation thus reached). However, if someone proposes such an explanation, I'll ask that you back it up with some kind of evidence. I won't accept the "It's the only idea that fits in with a literal interpretation of the Bible, so it MUST be true" argument.

My explaination is my testimony. 40 years living life my way, today I live for Him. It is a fact I have been delivered from 40 years of bad habits. The saying "old habits die hard" did not apply for me, when God moved on me those habits were gone. Do not misunderstand I still make mistakes, but instead of living to please myself, I now live to please Him. BTW I have eyewitnesses.

To get the ball rolling, here are a few examples of things that (to me) appear to be contradictory.

As mentioned before, what happened to Judas? How did he die, and what happened to the money he got from betraying Jesus?

When was Adam created? Before the animals or after them?

How would that affect God's plan for salvation?

Has anyone seen God face to face?

One day we will.

And was it God or an angel who appeared to Moses in the burning bush?

I do not know if that is important, what was the purpose of the message?

Of course, don't feel limited to these only. Feel free to discuss any contradictions (or perceioved contradictions).

I know this was not exactly what you were looking for, but it is truth and I believe Scripture backs it up.

 

[AMR]

Biblical contradictions are just Charlie Horses of the mind.

Many of these so-called contradictions have been discussed and explained. For example, see

BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS ANSWERED -- Biblical Errors Mistakes Difficulties Discrepancies Countered

Bible Contradictions, A Christian Response.

AMR

 

[Tiberius]

Let me google that for you

Thanks. Although I have done that, and I;ve found most of the 'explanations" to be those mental gymnastics I spoke of.

Let me give you two examples from the first site in those results...

101. David was tempted by the Lord to number Israel [2 Sam 24:1]

David was tempted by Satan to number the people [1 Chron 21:1]

There are three possible responses here:

(1) Biblical writers often dismissed secondary causes and attributed all things that happened to God, since He is over all things. Thus, God is did not tempt David, He allowed Satan to influence him.

(2) Arthur Hervey believes 2 Sam 24:1 is better translated as, "For one moved David against them." In this case, the numbering of the people was the cause of God's anger, not the result. After all, without this interpretation, it is not clear why God was angry with Israel.

(3) The verse in 1 Chron translated as "satan" could also be translated as "adversary." Strictly speaking, in this situation, God was Israel's adversary.

So we are given three possible explanations. Firstly, we can avoid the apparent contradiction by assuming that the Bibler was not written clearly - hardly something one would expect if it was written by/inspired by God.

Secondly, we have the opinion of one person. No indication who he is, mind you. A quick Google search reveals someone who plays music at a casino in Lake Tahoe, a composer who lived 1855-1922, and the most likely person, a bishop of Bath and Wells in England, living 1808-1894. Now, I'm not saying that he is wrong, but given that his opinions have obviously been around for a long time (he died more than a century ago) and his ideas obviously haven't been taken up, how can we be so sure that his opinion is correct? it isn't even widely accepted.

111. Christ's mission was peace [Luke 2:13,14]

Christ's mission was not peace [Matt 10:34]

Luke 2:14 says, "peace among men with whom he is pleased."

Mt. 10:34 says, "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

The first verse could very well mean that peace exists among those with whom God is pleased, i.e., the fellowship of believers. Yet such believers are like a light among the darkness, and men prefer the darkness. Thus, the fellowship of believers, while full of peace, incurs the wrath of the nonbelievers.

One only need consider that in some nations Christians peacefully gather, yet are persecuted, to see how easy this "contradiction" is resolved.

If this is the correct interpretation, then Jesus came to bring a sword... To the enemies of his folowers! he's basically saying, "I came to make life hard for you."

So I gotta ask, "Why?" This explanation doesn't make sense to me.

Perhaps both are true. It has been said: cursed is the man who hangs from a tree. (Meaning no one would bury him.) so if He was left unburied then given enough time a decomposition, He would fall from his tree and burst open on the rocks of that potters field.

Acts says that Judas fell headfirst. A person who hanged and then fell from there would fall feetfirst.

their was a standing Law that for bids any member of the synagogue from except blood money (even though they found a loop hole and offered it.) So after Judas hanged himself the field was purchased in his name with his 30 pieces of silver.

Perhaps. But I can't find any Biblical support. I can't accept something as fact if the only way to avoid contradictions in it is to speculate.

there was no need for a deep or detailed description of this because for the people in whom that account was written, it was common knowledge.

Acts has Peter standing up to tell about 120 of jesus' followers this story, about Judas hanging. If it was common knowledge, wouldn't they already know?

And the fact it was common knowledge doesn't explain why there are two diferent versions.

In the account of gen 1 we are told that Man and animals were created on the same day.

That was not my point.

My point was that in gen 1, the order is this...

1. Water creatures and flying things created on Day 5 (1:20-21).
2. All the other animals created on Day 6 (1:24-25).
3. Once all the animals were created, God makes man and woman at the same time (1:26-27).

...while in Gen 2, the order is this...

1. God creates Man but not woman and places him in Eden (2:7-8, 15).
2. God creates the beasts of the field and the fowl of the air (2:19).
3. After Adam doesn't find a suitable companion (!?) amongst the animals, God decides to make a woman for Adam (2:21-23).

There are quite a few discrepancies in my opinion. Gen 2 has the creation of birds on the same day as beasts of the field, whereas Gen 1 has it on a separate day. In Gen 1, man and woman were created at the same time, whereas in Gen 2, the animals were made in between them.

Anyone meaning who?? People? angels? Jesus? the devil??

People. As in Humans. Have any humans ever seen God face-to-face?

If a postal worker(messenger) hands you a letter from the president/queen or whom ever informing you that your work is to be nationally recognized.. In Who's authority was that message delivered? Who's words were used? Who would you say commended your work, and will raise it up to a national level to be commended? was it The messenger? Do you think He has that power? or would true authority come from the author of those words?

If you told that story, would you say that a postman informed me that i was to be commended? or would you say that the president was nationally recognizing my work? which way would be the true/correct way to phrase your good news?

I don't think the letter analogy is quite suitable, because we are talking about an actual voice.

A better analogy would be a phone call.

Anyway, in Mark, Jesus himself states that the voice Moses heard in the bush identified itself as the voice of God. How then could it have been an angel instead?

No but i am assuming these are the best examples you have... Most of which can be explained if you care to remove yourself from a modern Anglo/English way of thinking. At 31 you should know that The bible wasn't written in the king James or what ever version you are trying to pin infallibility on. The words, phrases, culture, history, interpretations, number of viable manuscripts, all contribute to a particular translation.
So if you read scripture in any English version as you would a text book originally written in English you will find apparent flaws or holes. But again all one has to do is to consider the time period and the people in which these words were written, and understanding can be yours..

I don't think that one particular version is fallible, I think the overall story is unlikely to be true. The fact that there are many inconsistancies is one of the reasons I think that Bible is not true, but I'm not going to discuss the other reasons in this thread.

..if that is what you truly seek.

I seek the truth. And I dpon't think that truth can be found by using mental gymnastics to explain something that you have already decided is true.

The Bible in it's entirety is God's revelation of salvation for all men through Jesus Christ, there is no salvific value in the details of how Judas died.

Then why is it in there? If, as you say, the purpose of the Bible is to reveal how to get salvation through Jesus, and the bit about Judas contributes nothing to this purpose, why include it? And if there is some purpose after all, why did God reveal two different things?

I know exactly what you are saying, but once God moves on you those gymnastic will become effortless. He does reveal wisdom and knowledge to those who abide in Him.

I'm sorry, but I'm sure you can understand that to me, that is just saying, "Once you decide that the Bible is true, you'll accept the mental gymnastics because you'll want the Bible to make sense."

My explaination is my testimony. 40 years living life my way, today I live for Him. It is a fact I have been delivered from 40 years of bad habits. The saying "old habits die hard" did not apply for me, when God moved on me those habits were gone. Do not misunderstand I still make mistakes, but instead of living to please myself, I now live to please Him. BTW I have eyewitnesses.

I'll never say that you never had those bad habits, or that you didn't overcome them.

But I will say that the argument from revelation (God coming and acting in your life) isn't convincing to others. After all, if it carried any value, wouldn't that mean that anyone who had Allah act in their lives was a reason to become Muslim? And what about the Hindu gods?

How would that affect God's plan for salvation?

I never said it did. All I said was that it was in the Bible, and there were two different versions of it.

One day we will.

This does not answer my question.

I do not know if that is important, what was the purpose of the message?

An appearance by God (according to some of the claims) and you say unimportant?

In any case, the relative importance has no bearing on what I am discussing. The fact remains there are conflicting accounts of what happened.

I know this was not exactly what you were looking for, but it is truth and I believe Scripture backs it up.

You mean the bits when you dismissed the apparent contradictions by saying that they weren't important? I don't think scriupture backs it up, I'm sorry.

Biblical contradictions are just Charlie Horses of the mind.

Many of these so-called contradictions have been discussed and explained. For example, see

BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS ANSWERED -- Biblical Errors Mistakes Difficulties Discrepancies Countered

Bible Contradictions, A Christian Response.

AMR

The first site you linked to is the one that 98cwitr linked to. I've mentioned two from there.

From the second site, the section about Adam and Eve and when they were created says that "God created them both, and that He did it on the sixth day. It does not say that He created them at the exact same moment. He created Adam first, then created Eve from his rib later the same day. Not a contradiction."

However, it completely ignores the fact that Gen 2 mentions the animals created BETWEEN Adam and Eve, while Gen 1 states very clearly that all the animals were created BEFORE any humans at all were made.

The website does deal with this in another section
, but the issue is not really settled to my satisfaction. They give two suggestions.

The first suggestion says that a different word is used. The implication is that God wasn't "creating" the animals, just "making" them. Of course, there's no support that original texts use the word for "create" when God is making them from nothing, and it's also assuming that the word for "make" couldn't also mean "create". After all, just about every language has instances where several words can mean the same thing.

The second suggestion relies on having a certain interpretation of the passages. To decide that a certain interpretation must be correct simply because it is the only one that avoids a contradiction is not the way to find the truth.

 

[LightHorseman]

Leviticus says men should have long hair, Paul says men should have short hair.

 

[MyHeroIsJesus]

If you would like to take one thing at a time I would be most interested to continue. BTW I knew nothing of the Bible, I had an experience and the Bible confirms my experience. The other religions lack a way to reconcile to God. (A Savior)

 

[drich0150]

Acts says that Judas fell headfirst. A person who hanged and then fell from there would fall feetfirst.

Acts 1:18
(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.

As you can see scripture simple says Head long... Not Head first. Headlong in English can mean head first or to do something quickly. But in the Greek What was translated into Headlong is actually: ttpnvns, yevopuevos The first word meaning bending forward, to prostrate, and the second word means: becoming.. Which could mean that this was how they found Him.. I'm sure the disciples weren't staying with him on a suicide watch, so there wouldn't be any wittinesses to the actual events.

With that in mind, if you take the literal translation and couple it with what we know of Judas's field (That it was a field and not a mountainous region) I makes it a little difficult for him to find himself in a situation where he could fall "head first" onto a relatively flat surface and have his intestines burst out.

Acts has Peter standing up to tell about 120 of Jesus' followers this story, about Judas hanging. If it was common knowledge, wouldn't they already know?

And the fact it was common knowledge doesn't explain why there are two different versions.

The common knowledge I was referring to is the fact that the temple could not except blood money, so the money had to be spend on Judas rather than going someplace else.

That was not my point.

My point was that in gen 1, the order is this...

1. Water creatures and flying things created on Day 5 (1:20-21).
2. All the other animals created on Day 6 (1:24-25).
3. Once all the animals were created, God makes man and woman at the same time (1:26-27).

...while in Gen 2, the order is this...

1. God creates Man but not woman and places him in Eden (2:7-8, 15).
2. God creates the beasts of the field and the fowl of the air (2:19).
3. After Adam doesn't find a suitable companion (!?) amongst the animals, God decides to make a woman for Adam (2:21-23).

Who is to say this didnot all happen on the same day? Do you know for certain that day was and always will be 24 hours long? The only time reference we have is that there was evening and morning.. You assume that time passes then as it does now, but we are told that one day for the Lord is like 1000 years to us, and a 1000 years as one day.. So with that in mind why can't all of this have happened on the "6th day?"

People. As in Humans. Have any humans ever seen God face-to-face?

Adam walk with God daily, before the fall.

I don't think the letter analogy is quite suitable, because we are talking about an actual voice.

A better analogy would be a phone call.

LOL,

I find when someone says an analogy doesn't work, it's because they have a hard time legitimately refuting it.. Otherwise they would simply tear it down line by line and turn your words against you.. Only when there is a point that is difficult to refute, that the entire analogy is discarded..

Anyway, in Mark, Jesus himself states that the voice Moses heard in the bush identified itself as the voice of God. How then could it have been an angel instead?

Where in Mark?
Voice and God only appear 2 times in Mark and neither of them have anything to do with Moses.

Even so, We are simply told that angels are messengers, We are not told of all the ways they can work.

I think that Bible is not true, but I'm not going to discuss the other reasons in this thread.

Why not?

you originally stated that there were many things wrong with scripture, that you were willing to discuss, why the change of heart?

I seek the truth. And I don't think that truth can be found by using mental gymnastics to explain something that you have already decided is true.

If to you mental gymnastics is looking any deeper that what your current understanding is, then your only alternative is to explain what you have already decided is or is not true.. Especially when everything you currently understand is heavily influenced by your ethnicity, your culture, and the time period in which you live.
There is truth to be had, but first you must be willing unbiasedly seek it.

 

[98cwitr]

Ok I'll give this a shot.

Luke 2 does not say that Christ's mission was peace. I don't know how you are getting that from the passages you posted. The ultimate ending and goal is peace, but the sin of the world must be destroyed before that can happen (see Revelations).

Not that He came to MAKE life hard for his followers, He was forewarning them that it was going to BE hard to follow him.

Acts 1 says headlong, not headfirst...you're misconstruing the definition

How did Judas Die?

We know many things that are common knowledge and still talk about them, retell the story. What's your point?

I don't see your reference in Gen 2, it does say that God brought all the animals in front of Adam to show him.

Yes and no on the seeing God face to face. We would be unable to look at God in His "natural form" without being blinded. But God comes in many forms and Jacob fights God in a human form. So yes and no depending in what context you are asking the question.

There are no contradictions in the Bible, only a lack of understanding and an inability to put such a large volume into complete contexts on the part of the reader.

 

[ebia]

How do you reconcile the contradictions in the Bible? Do you regard them as merely unimpoirtant details (it doesn't matter exactly how Judas died, whether he hang or fell and burst open, just that he died for his betrayal) or do you figure that the Bible contains no contradictions, and that anything that appears contradictory is just an illusion and simply requires the correct interpretation?

Stories are told for a reason, and very rarely is that reason "to precisely reconstruct the chronology of what happened."

IMO to call such differences in accounts "contradictions" is misleading - it assumes the accounts are trying to be precise about things that aren't their primary concern.

 

[Tiberius]

If you would like to take one thing at a time I would be most interested to continue. BTW I knew nothing of the Bible, I had an experience and the Bible confirms my experience. The other religions lack a way to reconcile to God. (A Savior)

Sure, if you want to take things one thing at a time, I'll do that with you.

And regarding the other religions and their lack of a way to reconcile to God... I'm sure followers of those religions would disagree with you.

Acts 1:18
(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.

As you can see scripture simple says Head long... Not Head first. Headlong in English can mean head first or to do something quickly. But in the Greek What was translated into Headlong is actually: ttpnvns, yevopuevos The first word meaning bending forward, to prostrate, and the second word means: becoming.. Which could mean that this was how they found Him.. I'm sure the disciples weren't staying with him on a suicide watch, so there wouldn't be any wittinesses to the actual events.

With that in mind, if you take the literal translation and couple it with what we know of Judas's field (That it was a field and not a mountainous region) I makes it a little difficult for him to find himself in a situation where he could fall "head first" onto a relatively flat surface and have his intestines burst out.

I fiond it very interesting that neither accpount mentions even a single detail from the other. other than Judas dying, the two accounts have nothing at all in common.

The common knowledge I was referring to is the fact that the temple could not except blood money, so the money had to be spend on Judas rather than going someplace else.

I won't debate this, as I don't know the customs of the time.

But I find it interesting that it wasn't mentioned in the text. One would almost think that the whole thing was written for people of the time, not as a holy text that would be used as a basis of worship for thousands of years.

Who is to say this didnot all happen on the same day? Do you know for certain that day was and always will be 24 hours long? The only time reference we have is that there was evening and morning.. You assume that time passes then as it does now, but we are told that one day for the Lord is like 1000 years to us, and a 1000 years as one day.. So with that in mind why can't all of this have happened on the "6th day?"

Please read what I wrote again. My issue is that the order of events changes, not the time span it takes.

And to answer your question about why it couldn't have all happened on the 6th day? Genesis 1 clearly states that the first animals were created on the 5th day.

Adam walk with God daily, before the fall.

How about after the fall?

LOL,

I find when someone says an analogy doesn't work, it's because they have a hard time legitimately refuting it.. Otherwise they would simply tear it down line by line and turn your words against you.. Only when there is a point that is difficult to refute, that the entire analogy is discarded..

Or maybe because the analogy is genuinely flawed.

Think about it.

We are dealing with a message delivered by a voice. And the person speaking is the one who delivered it.

Does that sound like a postal letter to you? A letter is written, not spoken. The person who writes the letter does not deliver it to your house.

Hence, I do not see your analogy as being accurate.

Where in Mark?
Voice and God only appear 2 times in Mark and neither of them have anything to do with Moses.

The passage is...

Mark 12:26 have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?

Is this not Jesus saying, "Haven't you read the book Moses wrote, where he tells how God spoke to him from a bush and said to him, 'Yo, I'm the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob'?"

Even so, We are simply told that angels are messengers, We are not told of all the ways they can work.

Jesus treats it like it was God speaking to Moses. Even if we don't know how Angels work, I'm sure Jesus would.

Why not?

you originally stated that there were many things wrong with scripture, that you were willing to discuss, why the change of heart?

Because I started this thread to discuss inconsistancies in the Bible and why I think they are evidence that the Bible is fallible. I'd be happy to discuss the other reasons I disbelieve, but this thread isn't the place.

If to you mental gymnastics is looking any deeper that what your current understanding is, then your only alternative is to explain what you have already decided is or is not true.. Especially when everything you currently understand is heavily influenced by your ethnicity, your culture, and the time period in which you live.

I just figure that if the Bible is really inspired/written by God and meant for peiople of all time, then it will be obvious in its meaning. When you are trying to save the souls of people bound for hell, why make it any harder than it needs to be?

There is truth to be had, but first you must be willing unbiasedly seek it.

I always strive to remain unbiased.

But I can't in good conscience try so hard to explain two widely varying accounts by using what is often far-fetched ideas and still claim to be unbiased.

Ok I'll give this a shot.

Luke 2 does not say that Christ's mission was peace. I don't know how you are getting that from the passages you posted. The ultimate ending and goal is peace, but the sin of the world must be destroyed before that can happen (see Revelations).

The angels are praising the glory of God for sending jesus.

They're saying, basically, "Jesus is here! Peace on earth! Goodwill towards men!"

You don't see how people get that interpretation?

In any case, I never said that I interpreted that passage as such. That passage and the claim that it means Jesus came to spread peace come from one of the websites posted by others regarding the Biblical inconsistancies. Please do not say that I made such a claim.

Not that He came to MAKE life hard for his followers, He was forewarning them that it was going to BE hard to follow him.

I find it hard to reconcile that with Jesus' "I bring a sword" comment. If he'd said, "Others will bring swords to you", then it would be easier to interpret that as him saying that other people will make it harder. But the way it's phrased, it sounds like the hardships will be caused by Jesus.

Acts 1 says headlong, not headfirst...you're misconstruing the definition

How did Judas Die?

The claim that "Fell" refers to falling from the grace of God, but they don't say why the word "headlong" is used to clarify how he fell. And the word "headlong" implies a physical act of falling.

The second claim that the reference to Judas' bowels refer to the seat of his compassion and mercy is plausible, but still far from certain. it would be like a person today saying they had a pain in their heart. Are they speaking literally or metaphorically? So, if the only reason you conclude that when they speak of Judas' bowels they are speaking metaphorically because that's the only way you can reconcile it with the hanging version, then it's simply a case of "This is the only way both versions can be true, so this must be it!" When you think like that, you have closed your mind to the possibility that one version may be wrong. I will not do that just to maintain an infallible Bible. The evidence provided is not strong enough for that.

We know many things that are common knowledge and still talk about them, retell the story. What's your point?

Yes we do, although it isn't really done during meetings about what we are to do next. Peter's speech seems to me to be like in those old sci-fi movies where two scientists are talking and one says, "As you know, Doctor Jones, the reactor must not fall below 50% or it will explode." The only reason it's said at all is so that the audience can know it.

I don't see your reference in Gen 2, it does say that God brought all the animals in front of Adam to show him.

Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Yes, God brings all the animals to Adam, but the passage also makes it very clear that this happened pretty much straight after they were made.

Yes and no on the seeing God face to face. We would be unable to look at God in His "natural form" without being blinded. But God comes in many forms and Jacob fights God in a human form. So yes and no depending in what context you are asking the question.

Exodus 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

There's no mention of any conditions. it says clearly that NO man will see God and live. It doesn't say, "No man shall see me and live, unless I happen to be in a form where he can see me and live."

There are no contradictions in the Bible, only a lack of understanding and an inability to put such a large volume into complete contexts on the part of the reader.

So far, I;ve seen that the only way to avoid contradictions in the Bible is to perform those mental gymnastics I spoke of in the OP. I'm sorry, but I just don't see that such gymnastics are justified.

Stories are told for a reason, and very rarely is that reason "to precisely reconstruct the chronology of what happened."

IMO to call such differences in accounts "contradictions" is misleading - it assumes the accounts are trying to be precise about things that aren't their primary concern.

if that is true, how can we tell which parts of the Bible are precise and which aren't? Unless we have some way to tell, how can we be sure of anything the Bible says?

 

[JasperJackson]

I have some general comments, rather than anything specific about a supposed contradiction.

Firstly, use a good Bible translation, such as the English Standard Version or the New International Version. They're available online: BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 100 versions and 50 languages.

Second, always read a verse in context. That may mean read the surrounding verse, or rest of the chapter, or several chapters. This will give you a greater understanding of the meaning. Remember, even though you don't consider the Bible to be the infallible word of God, the human writers were not idiots.

Third, some of the Bible is history, some is poetry, some is wisdom, some is prophecy and some is just a list of laws. I will make mention of Genesis 1, because many non-Christians get that far then stop. Genesis 1 has a very repetitive structure (e.g. "there was evening and there was morning, the first/second/etc day"). This seems poetic to me (not that I'm an expert in 3000+ year old Hebrew poetry), and hence should not be taken as a chronology of events.

Finally, the Bible is written for everyone. You (and I, for that matter) may like to delve deeply into every verse and really try to gain a full understanding. At the same time though, the Bible's message is clear enough for a child to understand - namely that we're sinners in need of a saviour and that saviour is Jesus.

Keep studying,
JJ

 

[ebia]

if that is true, how can we tell which parts of the Bible are precise and which aren't?

Like any other text, its a lot more precise about the things it is trying to talk about than things that are peripheral to that.

 

[98cwitr]

The Genesis 2 part is a reiteration.

The goodwill that the angels speak of, and peace, are towards one another...thus Jesus commands us in John, "Love each other as I have loved you." Maybe the sword is to cut through all the bull****....a metaphorical sword. Even if it isn't metaphorical, it is obvious that Christians have been, are, and will be persecuted for following Christ. Jesus does not bring hardship to those that follow Him unless it is to rebuke and discipline us, it are those who appose Christ that bring hardship and death to believers.

Look up the definition of headlong on dictionary.com...see the second definition. It's metaphorical as well.

These mental gymnastics you speak of are also mentioned by Jesus in Matt 13:

The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?"

11He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 13This is why I speak to them in parables:
"Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand. 14In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
" 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
15For this people's heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.'[a] 16But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. 17For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

 

[drich0150]

I won't debate this, as I don't know the customs of the time.[/QUOTE]

Which is the primary reason you think you have found so many inconsistencies. If this were a book originally written in English in a different time you would still have trouble understanding it as one who lived in the time it was written. So why take an ancient text, and proof read it like you would a modern text book?

I find it very interesting that neither account mentions even a single detail from the other. other than Judas dying, the two accounts have nothing at all in common.

One account records the act, and the other records the aftermath. Why would they be the same?

But I find it interesting that it wasn't mentioned in the text. One would almost think that the whole thing was written for people of the time, not as a holy text that would be used as a basis of worship for thousands of years.

Who's to say the author didn't assume that "things" would not have changed as much as they have. Look 2000 years previous to these events... Not alot of change in the way of science or human rights.. Why would he assume that everything he recorded would need to comply with the standards of a more sophisticated (Anglo/western) future generation?

Or maybe because the analogy is genuinely flawed.

Think about it.

We are dealing with a message delivered by a voice. And the person speaking is the one who delivered it.

Does that sound like a postal letter to you? A letter is written, not spoken. The person who writes the letter does not deliver it to your house.

Did you even read the post that was paired with this analogy? It focused on messengers and the messages that they bring... The point being if a messenger brought you a message Good or bad, it was not the messenger who spoke, wrote or authorized it. It was merely delivered by the messenger, because of this it would be correct to say that whoever sent the message told you ________________ even if it was a messenger who delivered the news... Surely at 31 you can see this right? and if I wrote this you must know i would be able to explain myself... So why go down swinging in such a way as to make you're self look petty? Is winning the argument that important?

26Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'[d]?

Is this not Jesus saying, "Haven't you read the book Moses wrote, where he tells how God spoke to him from a bush and said to him, 'Yo, I'm the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob'?"

Again if a messenger delivers this message in the Name of god then in effect it is God's words...

During WWII when communications were down they used "runners" or messengers who even at a lower rank commanded the authority of the ranking officer who sent him... So if a private who got his orders from a Capitan ran over to a platoon lead by a 1st lieutenant and told him to draw fire from the right flank, then would it not be correct for the lieutenant to say he received orders from captain so&so to put His men in Harms way? (Does this one meet your approval?) Or do you think because the words came from a private, that they have no meaning?

Jesus treats it like it was God speaking to Moses. Even if we don't know how Angels work, I'm sure Jesus would.

Maybe you guys do it differently where you come from... So I will explain it one more time. If a messenger takes a message to you, then it is not on the messengers authority that you receive the message, it is on the one who sent him. If God sent an angel/messenger to tell Moses anything, then it was God who told moses not the angel.

I just figure that if the Bible is really inspired/written by God and meant for people of all time, then it will be obvious in its meaning. When you are trying to save the souls of people bound for hell, why make it any harder than it needs to be?

So god should have written this book to you and the rest of this generation forsaking 5000 years of people before us???

-Or-

Maybe God took into account that those of us in a later generation who were truly looking for Him would take the time to look past their own personal comfort zones, race and culture to Find Him anywhere He maybe... In other words it would be easier for us to look back into the past than for those who lived in the past to look to the future to find God.

He is there, but you must Ask seek and knock with all of your being to find Him.

If you can not find him now you will not be able to know Him if the bible read like a western text book. The only difference being if we had a text book bible, more of those who know God now would most likely be sucked into the false religion of bible worship.

As it is we have the best balance of what we need, to establish and maintain a relationship with God.

Just because God does not work like you expect him to doesn't mean He can not work any other way. It take an awful lot of pride to think If god is not what I expect, then He can not be there.

 

[Tiberius]

Firstly, use a good Bible translation, such as the English Standard Version or the New International Version. They're available online: BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 100 versions and 50 languages.

I've read several different versions of the Bible, both physical and online.

Second, always read a verse in context. That may mean read the surrounding verse, or rest of the chapter, or several chapters. This will give you a greater understanding of the meaning. Remember, even though you don't consider the Bible to be the infallible word of God, the human writers were not idiots.

I do.

Third, some of the Bible is history, some is poetry, some is wisdom, some is prophecy and some is just a list of laws. I will make mention of Genesis 1, because many non-Christians get that far then stop. Genesis 1 has a very repetitive structure (e.g. "there was evening and there was morning, the first/second/etc day"). This seems poetic to me (not that I'm an expert in 3000+ year old Hebrew poetry), and hence should not be taken as a chronology of events.

And how does one tell which part is which?

Finally, the Bible is written for everyone. You (and I, for that matter) may like to delve deeply into every verse and really try to gain a full understanding. At the same time though, the Bible's message is clear enough for a child to understand - namely that we're sinners in need of a saviour and that saviour is Jesus.

Keep studying,
JJ

If it was written for everyone, why isn't it clear? As Drich0150 points out, I am not aware of the customs of the time, and thus I may get some things wrong. Why is it that one must doi extra study to get the full message oif the Bible is meant for everyone? Why is it written like it was for people thousands of years ago?

Like any other text, its a lot more precise about the things it is trying to talk about than things that are peripheral to that.

But there is no way to tell which is which.

The Genesis 2 part is a reiteration.

I don't see how this is possible, as the order of things has changed completely.

The goodwill that the angels speak of, and peace, are towards one another...thus Jesus commands us in John, "Love each other as I have loved you." Maybe the sword is to cut through all the bull****....a metaphorical sword. Even if it isn't metaphorical, it is obvious that Christians have been, are, and will be persecuted for following Christ. Jesus does not bring hardship to those that follow Him unless it is to rebuke and discipline us, it are those who appose Christ that bring hardship and death to believers.

Is there any basis for this speculation?

Look up the definition of headlong on dictionary.com...see the second definition. It's metaphorical as well.

I'll grant that. But it still doesn't explain why the neither account has anything in common with the other account (other than "Judas dies"). When two sources give very different accounts of how someone dies, that's one thing, but when they also provide nother to support each other, that reinforces my doubts.

These mental gymnastics you speak of are also mentioned by Jesus in Matt 13:

Maybe they had the same problem then, that people found the stories unlikely, and they included this to support their position.

I won't debate this, as I don't know the customs of the time.

Which is the primary reason you think you have found so many inconsistencies. If this were a book originally written in English in a different time you would still have trouble understanding it as one who lived in the time it was written. So why take an ancient text, and proof read it like you would a modern text book?

The Bible is mneant to be for everyone. Isn't it reasonable that it could be understood by everyone? Why then would it require a knowledge about ancient customs etc? That makes it sound like the Bible is just a bunch of stories from ancient times.

In other words, the fact that the Bible is not obvious in its meaning is evidence to me that it was not inspired by God, and thus is not infallible.

One account records the act, and the other records the aftermath. Why would they be the same?

I don't see that they are doing this. Both are describing the same thing - the death of Judas.

Who's to say the author didn't assume that "things" would not have changed as much as they have. Look 2000 years previous to these events... Not alot of change in the way of science or human rights.. Why would he assume that everything he recorded would need to comply with the standards of a more sophisticated (Anglo/western) future generation?

If it was inspired by God, why would he do that at all? If it was divinely inspired, wouldn't it have no need for a human writer to try and figure out what things would be like? The only reason that makes sense is if the Bible is just a collection of stories written by people.

Did you even read the post that was paired with this analogy? It focused on messengers and the messages that they bring... The point being if a messenger brought you a message Good or bad, it was not the messenger who spoke, wrote or authorized it. It was merely delivered by the messenger, because of this it would be correct to say that whoever sent the message told you ________________ even if it was a messenger who delivered the news... Surely at 31 you can see this right? and if I wrote this you must know i would be able to explain myself... So why go down swinging in such a way as to make you're self look petty? Is winning the argument that important?

And my point is that it was God speaking directly to Moses - there was no messenger at all!

Again if a messenger delivers this message in the Name of god then in effect it is God's words...

During WWII when communications were down they used "runners" or messengers who even at a lower rank commanded the authority of the ranking officer who sent him... So if a private who got his orders from a Capitan ran over to a platoon lead by a 1st lieutenant and told him to draw fire from the right flank, then would it not be correct for the lieutenant to say he received orders from captain so&so to put His men in Harms way? (Does this one meet your approval?) Or do you think because the words came from a private, that they have no meaning?

Who was the messenger then? The bush perhaps?

Maybe you guys do it differently where you come from... So I will explain it one more time. If a messenger takes a message to you, then it is not on the messengers authority that you receive the message, it is on the one who sent him. If God sent an angel/messenger to tell Moses anything, then it was God who told moses not the angel.

As I said before, there was no messenger! it was God and Moses! God was speaking directly to Moses, even Jesus says it!

So god should have written this book to you and the rest of this generation forsaking 5000 years of people before us???

-Or-

Maybe God took into account that those of us in a later generation who were truly looking for Him would take the time to look past their own personal comfort zones, race and culture to Find Him anywhere He maybe... In other words it would be easier for us to look back into the past than for those who lived in the past to look to the future to find God.

Or God could have written the book so it could be read and understood without the need for knowledge about the ancient world.

He is there, but you must Ask seek and knock with all of your being to find Him.

I must believe and only then I will get proof?

The rest of your post doesn't discuss the topic.

 

[ebia]

But there is no way to tell which is which.

Isn't there?

You seem to be demanding a naive simplicity and unambiguity that simply never exists in human communiction.

 

[JasperJackson]

Tiberius,

I tried to find a simple chart online outlining the different categories of writing in the Bible but had no luck, so I'll take a punt myself...

OLD TESTAMENT
Genesis: ch. 1 - poetry, ch. 2-50 - history
Exodus-Deuteronomy: law/history
Joshua-Esther: history
Job-Song of Solomon: wisdom/poetry
Isaiah-Malachi: prophecy (some of which has already come true, some refers to things to come)
NEW TESTAMENT:
Matthew-John: history (of Jesus life)
Acts: history (of the early church)
Romans-Jude: letters to churches/individuals
Revelation: prophecy

As to your question why do we need to do extra study to understand the Bible? I don't know. Maybe some people don't need to do that extra study. But I know I do. It could have something to do with God's desire for the community of believers (the church) to live together, helping each other and relying on each other. And that's what a theological textbook, or something, is trying to do - to help out fellow believers.

Hope this helps.

 

[Tiberius]

Isn't there?

You seem to be demanding a naive simplicity and unambiguity that simply never exists in human communiction.

Ah, but we aren't talking about Human communication. We're talking about divine communication.

if the Bible is simply Human in origin, then what does it matter if it contains inconsistancies? But if it is divine, then it would be a lot clearer, don't you think?

Tiberius,

I tried to find a simple chart online outlining the different categories of writing in the Bible but had no luck, so I'll take a punt myself...

OLD TESTAMENT
Genesis: ch. 1 - poetry, ch. 2-50 - history
Exodus-Deuteronomy: law/history
Joshua-Esther: history
Job-Song of Solomon: wisdom/poetry
Isaiah-Malachi: prophecy (some of which has already come true, some refers to things to come)
NEW TESTAMENT:
Matthew-John: history (of Jesus life)
Acts: history (of the early church)
Romans-Jude: letters to churches/individuals
Revelation: prophecy

And how was it determined that each part is as it is described in this list?

As to your question why do we need to do extra study to understand the Bible? I don't know. Maybe some people don't need to do that extra study. But I know I do. It could have something to do with God's desire for the community of believers (the church) to live together, helping each other and relying on each other. And that's what a theological textbook, or something, is trying to do - to help out fellow believers.

The need for extra study stems from God's desire for the people of the chuirch to work together?

Given that countless people have been killed over arguments that are basically, "My interpretation of the Bible is right and yours is wrong!", I'd say that it didn't work very well. Not really a plan I'd expect to see from God...