How do you explain Biblical Contradictions? (moved from Gen. Theology)

[Epiphoskei]

Less explainable would why Genesis talks about Joseph being lead away by a caravan of camels when the camel wasn't domesticated until several hundred years later.

Uh, dromedaries were domesticated sometime between 3000-2000 B.C.

 

[Secundulus]

I really wanted to know how people accept and live with things that are contradicting in the bible.

I'm sorry that my examples are mundane. There are pages and pages of contradictions really, but I guess they will all be too mundane for you?

All of the contradictions that I have seen athiests and others gloat over are easily explained if one has an understanding of how the Bible was written and what different types of literature it contains.

The problem is that many non-Christians view it like the Muslims view the Quran; as a book written in heaven and dictated to Prophets. It is not that.

If you want to speak of specifics then post them. I think the example of "thou shalt not kill has already been addressed."

 

[Epiphoskei]

It seems like I have been getting a lot of half-answers and also some (it feels like it to me) underlying hostility or dislike, most probably because I'm agnostic.(?)

I really wanted to know how people accept and live with things that are contradicting in the bible.

I'm sorry that my examples are mundane. There are pages and pages of contradictions really, but I guess they will all be too mundane for you?

It just seems interesting to me how the Inerrant and Inspired Word of God can have contradictions in it, and folks just accept it.

There are certainly pages of alleged contradictions, but there has been nothing presented yet that could not be reasonably reconciled.

I thought that I would get some info or feedback on why or how this is justified, but most of you just ignore the contradictions and move on.

You're going to have to give some clear examples. Those you've already given have been addressed here. They aren't contradictions, as has been shown. That's not ignoring, that's defense.

Sure it was written by many people, but weren't they all inspired by God, one author? I'

m just trying to understand.

Stylistic differences arise from different authorship. A great many of the proposed contradictions presented to Christian apologists are merely stylistic differences.

Maybe the question is too hard, or the fact too disturbing to actually come to terms with the fact that God's Word is full of contradictions.

You have to prove it first. And please allow that perhaps people who have studied this book for two thousand years may have already though of and answered them.

 

[SummaScriptura]

The LXX in the NETS, reads "You shall not commit murder". Both in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The LXX in the NETS, reads "You shall not commit murder". Both in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5.

Yes it does...had to find another LXX site as the one I use is down for some reason

http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/chapter.asp?book=2&page=20

[LXX] Exodus 20:13 οὐ μοιχεύσεις #5407.

Luke 18:20 The commandments thou have known, no thou should be committing adultery, no thou should be murdering/foneushV <5407> (5661), no thou should be stealing, no thou should be bearing false witness. Be honouring thy father and thy mother.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Why do people who have problems with accepting the Bible as God's word, impose the impossible threshhold of proof that the Bible must have been handed down as by dictation method if it is to be accepted as the word of God?

That is a threshold of proof that, as far as I can tell, most people of faith don't require; so, why do people of no faith require it? Hmm?

 

[PROPHECYKID]

How do you go about explaining, to yourself and to someone else, the obvious contradictions of the bible?

There are many, but I’m thinking of the big ones, like:

* 10 Commandments say: “Thou Shalt not Kill”, but the O.T. is full of mass-killings, including women and children, commanded by God.
* What about the contradictions through all 4 gospels of the resurrection account.
* Which came first, animals or man? (Gen 1:25 show animals came first; Gen 2:18,19 show Adam was made first and then God made the animals and brought them to Adam to be named)
* or the many contradictions between the four gospels on the resurrection.

I was wondering what the average Christian responds with.

Thanks!

I don't see the reason why so many are trying to deny that there are contradictions or at least apparent contradictions in the above mentioned points. I can add one more myself. But everything has an explanation. I don't have an explanation for all of them.

About the mass killings in the old testament. Wars in the old testament wasn't about killing. A victory for the nation of Israel was a testimony to all nations about the power of God. That is how many would know about the power of God because an Israelite couldn't go witnessing in Assyria. Rahab heard about God and what God done for Israel in wars and miracles and she joined the ranks. That's one of the reasons. You can get a better answer for these questions on the site www.bibleinfo.com. Try asking this question there and see if the response is pleasing to you.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I don't see the reason why so many are trying to deny that there are contradictions or at least apparent contradictions in the above mentioned points. I can add one more myself. But everything has an explanation. I don't have an explanation for all of them.

About the mass killings in the old testament. Wars in the old testament wasn't about killing. A victory for the nation of Israel was a testimony to all nations about the power of God. That is how many would know about the power of God because an Israelite couldn't go witnessing in Assyria. Rahab heard about God and what God done for Israel in wars and miracles and she joined the ranks. That's one of the reasons. You can get a better answer for these questions on the site www.bibleinfo.com. Try asking this question there and see if the response is pleasing to you.

That is one reason I no longer debate atheists, Jews and Muslims on the Bible. Perhaps I may send them to that link you put up

"Muslims talk often about the many contradictions in the Bible. The number of contradictions vary depending on whom you are talking to. Kairanvi's Izhar-ul-Haq presents 119 numbered contradictions, while others such as Shabbir Ally have supposedly found 101 contradictions. The problem as they see it concerns their supposition that any religious book claiming absolute divine authority must not include any contradictions, as a message emanating from an Omniscient being must be consistent with itself".

 

[LightHorseman]

The many Biblical contradictions are artefacts of the fact that the Bible is a collection of the work of different authors across a long period of time, in different social contexts and different political contexts. Other contradictions can be put down to the fact that parts of the Bible are allegorical, other parts are intended as literal, and some is written with a sense of poetic/artistic licence. The contradictions really aren't a problem unless you insist the Bible is LITERALLY correct and the direct word of God... both of which are claims that not even the Bible makes.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

How do you go about explaining, to yourself and to someone else, the obvious contradictions of the bible?

Conservative Christians hold that behind the multiple human authors within Scripture is one Author, God. That means the Bible is a canonical unity. Anyone who says that Scripture contains "obvious contradictions" has already rejected the idea that Scripture is a canonical unity inspired by God. Its a different assumption.

If discrepancies have plausible explanations, then they are not contradictions. As others said, there are many plausible explanations for the ones you listed.


LDG

 

[Hentenza]

Mod Hat On
​

Thread closed for review. This is the wrong forum for this thread and will be moved soon.
​

 

[daydreamergurl15]

I wrote on this before, but because of the black out in early April, I will repost it here.

How do you go about explaining, to yourself and to someone else, the obvious contradictions of the bible?
* What about the contradictions through all 4 gospels of the resurrection account.

I wanted to answer this "apparent contradiction" because I asked the same question when I was searching the bible.

I've come to realize that if you read the Gospel accounts, it's not that they are contradicting each other, it's that they are completing each other. One gospel will leave out one thing, and then the other accounts will add more or look at it in a different aspect. At first glance, it looks like a contradiction but if you continue reading you will see that each account give you a different understanding of the events happening.

You asked whom did Jesus meet when He was resurrected, it is not whom He met first or last but how He went from meeting the first (which were the women) to the last (the eleven, though I am not sure if He only met them only...I can't think right now. )

In Matthew's account: (Chapter 28)
We are told the women (Mary Magdalene and Mary), when walking to Jesus' tomb -there was an earthquake because a descendant from heaven came and rolled back the stone. The angels told them that Christ has risen. Then as they were heading to Galilee to tell the disciples they met Jesus on their way, they worshiped Him and He told them "do not be afraid. Go and tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me" (Matt 38:10). We have an interruption where they guard tell the chief priest about Jesus' tomb, then Jesus meet the eleven disciples in Galilee. It tells us that some doubted and that is where Christ gave them the great commission.

In Mark's account: (Chapter 16)
We are told the women (Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome) brought spices to anoint Christ in His tomb. In this account, we have a dialogue between the women "Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us" But when they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away-for it was very large (Mark 16:3-4). There they met a man clothed in a white robe and then the man said "Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He is risen! he is not here. See the place where they laid Him. But go tell His disciples-and Peter-that He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you" (Mark 16:6-7). It said that Jesus rose early on the first day of the week (this is the same day that the women spoke to the angels, it says "Now when the Sabbath was past" Mark 16:1) and appeared first to Mary Magdalene and she told them. Then we are told Jesus appeared to two of them in another form and the eleven did not believe them just like they didn't believe the women. Then Jesus appear to the eleven and spoke of the Great Commission.

In Luke's account: (Chapter 23-24)
We are told that the women observed the tomb and returned and prepared spices and fragrant oils and that there were "certain other women" with them that came to the tomb bringing the spices that were prepared. Now we are told that the women saw two men and we are told that they bowed their faces on the earth and said "Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but He is risen... (the dialogue is much longer than the other accounts vs. 6-7). We are then told that the went to meet up with the eleven. We are given the names of some of women that were there (Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women) told the apostles about their encounter. This is where we told that Peter ran to the tomb and marveled at himself at what just happened. Now it tells us that two of them were traveling on the same day (first day of the week) to a village called Emmaus, that was when Jesus Himself appeared to them and they did not know it. (They have a long conversation with Christ chpt 24:13-27), then they go and tell the other disciples about their encounter with Him. Now He sits at a table with them and finally the eleven understand and Christ's dialogue is different from the other two account. But it is not a contradiction, it is certainly possible that both dialogues occurred but each recorded differently or that Luke summarized the 40 days that Christ was with the disciples. This account writes down Jesus' ascension.

In John's account (Chapter 20-21)
It records Mary Magdalene going into the tomb and then ran to Peter to tell that Jesus' body was not there, Peter and another disciple came into the tomb and in which, after he saw the clothes, "he saw and believed. We are then told that Mary Magadele was weeping and she saw two angels, then one of which turned out to be Christ (which might explain why Mark said that Jesus appeared first to her), then she goes and tells the disciples. We see another account of Jesus appearing to His disciples and told about Thomas doubting because he wasn't with them when Christ appeared to them. The account also tells us how Christ appeared to some of His disciples-(Simon Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, sons of Zebedee and two others went fishing) Jesus met them on shore and they have a dialogue (Chpt 21). Again a different dialogue is presented because the day is actually different from the other accounts.


If you have any time, I think you should give the gospel account another chance and read it again. You have to read the scripture in it's context, it will give you the time frame. Some things seem like it's a contradiction but if you read all four, you can see the holistic approach that they have when combined together and apart. It might say one thing, or emphasize someone but if you put them together, they are not contradicting each other.

 

[divided sky]

To add another Christian response, which may not be popular around here, my opinion agrees with LightHorsemen (see post #29). I acknowledge the Bible does have contradictions but it's to be expected considering the origin of the collection of writings in the Bible, and even how the collection was put together (OT & NT).

I believe the Bible is the Word of God because it has a profound truth running through it that can shake a person to their core. But it's a human book, written by humans, attempting to put into words profound experiences. I don't know why this is so hard for Christians to acknowledge. God is not a book.

 

[Epiphoskei]

I believe the Bible is the Word of God because it has a profound truth running through it that can shake a person to their core. But it's a human book, written by humans, attempting to put into words profound experiences. I don't know why this is so hard for Christians to acknowledge. God is not a book.

God can't make mistakes. If he can't make an infallable statement to humanity then we can't trust that we know anything about him on any subject.

If the lense of humanity must necesarally distort the light of God, we're in deep trouble.

 

[LightHorseman]

God can't make mistakes. If he can't make an infallable statement to humanity then we can't trust that we know anything about him on any subject.

If the lense of humanity must necesarally distort the light of God, we're in deep trouble.

Then I guess we're in deep trouble.

Maybe we're just meant to do the best we can with what we have?

 

[divided sky]

God can't make mistakes. If he can't make an infallable statement to humanity then we can't trust that we know anything about him on any subject.

If the lense of humanity must necesarally distort the light of God, we're in deep trouble.

But what if God didn't write the Bible word for word (through humans), as many Christians seem to think? What if humans wrote these writings inspired by God but limited by our human perspective? I would claim that between the Bible and historic church tradition, we have the knowledge of salvation. In other words, we received the message from God. The message got through.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

But what if God didn't write the Bible word for word (through humans), as many Christians seem to think? What if humans wrote these writings inspired by God but limited by our human perspective? I would claim that between the Bible and historic church tradition, we have the knowledge of salvation. In other words, we received the message from God. The message got through.

If it was limited to our human perspective, then Moses would not have written the creation of the world nor the Genesis account because He wasn't there. The prophecies of the prophets would not have come true, because that is beyond human perspective. And John would not have written Revelations because most of it is taking place in Heaven, in John's vision. And countless other things would not be written in there because they are beyond our human perspective.

 

[divided sky]

If it was limited to our human perspective, then Moses would not have written the creation of the world nor the Genesis account because He wasn't there.

But Moses didn't write Genesis nor any of the other books attributed to him. That has been overwhelmingly proven and accepted by most Bible scholars.

The prophecies of the prophets would not have come true, because that is beyond human perspective. And John would not have written Revelations because most of it is taking place in Heaven, in John's vision. And countless other things would not be written in there because they are beyond our human perspective.

I'm sure we'd differ on the definition of prophecy. In addition, I don't think Revelation is meant to be taken literally.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

But Moses didn't write Genesis nor any of the other books attributed to him. That has been overwhelmingly proven and accepted by most Bible scholars.

Be careful not to allow scholarly men to tell you what scripture says. And because I am a human and not scholarly, I know that I make mistakes and error when it come to understanding scripture, I pray that you read scripture and see if what I say is true. If not, you can go on freely ignoring me.


In Exodus 17:14 "Then the Lord said to Moses, 'Write this for a memorial in the book and recount it in the hearing of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven."

Have you ever heard the phrase "Book of Moses" it is constantly said throughout the Old Testament but when we come into the New Testament, Christ tells us this "But regrading the fact that the dead rise again, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the burning bush, how God spoke to him, saying 'I AM THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, AND THE GOD OF ISAAC, AND THE GOD OF JACOB'? Mark 12:26

I believe this event happened right before Christ made the comments it was said this:
Now there came to Him some of the Sadducees (who say tht there is no resurrection), and they questioned Him, saying, "Teacher, Moses wrote for us that IF A MAN'S BROTHER DIES, having a wife, AND HE IS CHILDLESS, HIS BROTHER SHOULD MARRY THE WIFE AND RAISE UP CHILDREN TO HIS BROTHER..." Luke 20:27-28

But I say all this not to argue over what scholars say about whom wrote the Books, but that, if the bible is written in the confines of our human perspective then Genesis 1 account would not have been written for the only persons whom were there within the first five days of creation of the world were the Godhead. So, you see that it is the Holy Spirit that are telling them to write.

I'm sure we'd differ on the definition of prophecy. In addition, I don't think Revelation is meant to be taken literally.

I am not saying anything about prophecy or Revelations itself, I am saying that if the bible was written in the confines of human perspective, these things would not be included.

 

[divided sky]

Be careful not to allow scholarly men to tell you what scripture says. And because I am a human and not scholarly, I know that I make mistakes and error when it come to understanding scripture, I pray that you read scripture and see if what I say is true. If not, you can go on freely ignoring me.

What's wrong with Bible scholars? Many are committed Christians and they accept that Moses didn't write the five books attributed to him. Ever heard of the Documentary Hypothesis?

Have you ever heard the phrase "Book of Moses" it is constantly said throughout the Old Testament but when we come into the New Testament, Christ tells us this "But regrading the fact that the dead rise again, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the burning bush, how God spoke to him, saying 'I AM THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, AND THE GOD OF ISAAC, AND THE GOD OF JACOB'? Mark 12:26

The term "Book of Moses" is used because tradition has said for a long time that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch. They're still called the books of Moses, and I have no issue with that. Doesn't mean that Moses wrote them though.

I believe this event happened right before Christ made the comments it was said this:
Now there came to Him some of the Sadducees (who say tht there is no resurrection), and they questioned Him, saying, "Teacher, Moses wrote for us that IF A MAN'S BROTHER DIES, having a wife, AND HE IS CHILDLESS, HIS BROTHER SHOULD MARRY THE WIFE AND RAISE UP CHILDREN TO HIS BROTHER..." Luke 20:27-28

Yep, many for many centuries have believed Moses wrote the Pentateuch. But very strong evidence within the last 200 years has clearly shown Moses did not write these books.

But I say all this not to argue over what scholars say about whom wrote the Books, but that, if the bible is written in the confines of our human perspective then Genesis 1 account would not have been written for the only persons whom were there within the first five days of creation of the world were the Godhead. So, you see that it is the Holy Spirit that are telling them to write.

I don't take the Genesis accounts of creation literally. The Bible isn't a science textbook.