How do you reconcile your belief in Christianity with Biblical errancy

[Ave Maria]

Hi everyone. I recently decided to be an Agnostic but I also recently decided to give Christianity a chance to explain itself. What I want to know is, how do you justify your belief in Christianity with the fact that the Bible contains so many errors and contradictions?

 

[Everlasting33]

Do you have several examples you wish to discuss?

 

[Ave Maria]

Do you have several examples you wish to discuss?

Sure. Here are some:

God good to all, or just a few? PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

War or Peace? EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

Who is the father of Joseph? MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.


I copied these off of a website but they are valid contradictions nonetheless.

 

[AV1611VET]

What I want to know is, how do you justify your belief in Christianity with the fact that the Bible contains so many errors and contradictions?

It doesn't contain errors and contradictions --- It contains paradoxes --- there's a difference.

Here's my favorite example of a Biblical "contradiction" that is really a paradox:

Notice that the Bible first says ---

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

--- but then, just a few verses later, the Bible says ---

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

Now this is one of, if not the easiest of the paradoxes to explain (yes, it's not a contradiction).

Here's another easy one:

And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS.

And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Can you explain this paradox?

Now let's step it up a notch:

And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.

13 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.
14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!

How is it that Jesus is on the cross the third hour --- yet standing in front of Pontius Pilate the sixth hour?

Now I'll step it up one more notch, just for fun:

And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

When you learn to view these as what they are (i.e. paradoxes), and not contradictions, it makes a world of difference.

 

[Everlasting33]

Sure. Here are some:

God good to all, or just a few? PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

War or Peace? EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

Who is the father of Joseph? MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.


I copied these off of a website but they are valid contradictions nonetheless.

Here are a couple excerpts that explain it best:

God good to all, or just a few?

Jeremiah 13:14 is in context to the people of Judah (chapter seven) who were worshiping Baal, a false god.



War or peace?

Why not both?

[FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][SIZE=+0]"The Exodus was a time when God advanced on behalf of Israel for conquest -- it is certainly appropriate that this hymn of praise to Him extolled that virtue and practice. Romans 15:33 is the salutation of a letter, when blessings are offered. The "genre gap" here is vast, to say nothing of the historical contexts! A contradiction would only exist if God were described as being of war and peace at the same time and performing the same action. That simply isn't the case here. Being warlike and peaceful are not permanently, mutually contradictory states, for they each involve complexes of interaction with persons and actions that are encountered over time.[/SIZE][/FONT]"

http://www.tektonics.org/uz/warringgod.html

• "WHO IS THE FATHER OF JOSEPH

(NIV) Contradiction 1: And Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus...
Matthew 1:16
(NIV) Contradiction 2: Jesus...was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli. Luke 3:23

Though this belief is not unanimous, it is generally accepted among scholars that Matthew records the genealogy
of Joseph while Luke records the genealogy of Mary. Jacob is believed to be the biological father of Joseph while
Heli is believed to be the father of Mary and the father-in-law of Joseph. If Heli only fathered the two daughters
mentioned in the New Testament it is possible Joseph, the son-in-law, would be mentioned as his son in order to
preserve the family name and inheritance."

http://www.thedevineevidence.com/bible_contradictions_jesus_genealogy.html

 

[Ave Maria]

It doesn't contain errors and contradictions --- It contains paradoxes --- there's a difference.

Here's my favorite example of a Biblical "contradiction" that is really a paradox:

Notice that the Bible first says ------ but then, just a few verses later, the Bible says ---Now this is one of, if not the easiest of the paradoxes to explain (yes, it's not a contradiction).

Here's another easy one:Can you explain this paradox?

Now let's step it up a notch:How is it that Jesus is on the cross the third hour --- yet standing in front of Pontius Pilate the sixth hour?

Now I'll step it up one more notch, just for fun:When you learn to view these as what they are (i.e. paradoxes), and not contradictions, it makes a world of difference.

Just so you know, you have pretty much strengthened my non-belief by posting these "paradoxes" which I prefer to call contradictions. If you have answers to these contradictions then feel free to post them and maybe I might reconsider Christianity but as it is, I'm pretty solid in my belief that Christianity is false.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just so you know, you have pretty much strengthened my non-belief by posting these "paradoxes" which I prefer to call contradictions. If you have answers to these contradictions then feel free to post them and maybe I might reconsider Christianity but as it is, I'm pretty solid in my belief that Christianity is false.

I'll try my best ---

PARADOX ONE:

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

EXPLANATION: In the first passage (Genesis 2:17), God is the One talking --- and telling the truth; but in the second passage (Genesis 3:4), the serpent is the one talking --- and telling a lie.

PARADOX TWO:

And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS.

And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.

EXPLANATION: The full inscription reads: THIS IS JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS.

• Matthew omits: THIS IS JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
• .....Mark omits: THIS IS JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
• .....John omits: THIS IS JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS.

PARADOX THREE:

And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.

13 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.
14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!

EXPLANATION: Click here please ===> 8 .

PARADOX FOUR:

And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

God simply allowed Satan to prompt David to number Israel, and Samuel records it as God's doing, while the writer of 1 Chronicles records it as Satan's doing.

 

[Celticflower]

nm[

 

[packermann]

Hi everyone. I recently decided to be an Agnostic but I also recently decided to give Christianity a chance to explain itself. What I want to know is, how do you justify your belief in Christianity with the fact that the Bible contains so many errors and contradictions?

Although I do believe in the inerrant Word of God there are many Christians that I know who do not. So believing in the inerrant Word of God is not essential for being a Christian. If you have problems with the Bible, do not let that stop you from coming to Christ. Christianity is not about believing in a book, but believing in the person of Christ. It is even logically possible that the Bible is not the Word of God and still Jesus is God.

There are many differing views on the Bible among Christians. Some Christians believe the Bible merely contains the Word of God. Others believe that the Bible is the Word of God, but it is only inerrant when it comes to faith and morals. And others believe it is the inerrant Word of God.

Don’t get me wrong here! I myself do believe in the inerrant Word of God. And although it is not necessary to believe in the inerrant Word of God to become a Christian, you do need to believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God to grow in your Christian faith.

With that in mind, I like to take a look at your examples:

God good to all, or just a few? PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

You must be careful of proof-texting. That is lifting a verse entirely out of its context. If you look at the context, you will see that the people that God is talking about are the Jews (see verse 13). The whole OT is about how the Jews are God’s chosen people. According to the OT, God was more good to the Jews than to anyone. He delivered them from Egypt and, by the time the Psalms were written, the Jews under King David had a great empire in the region. At that time, this was the height of Jewish prosperity. Let the good times roll! So David writes Psalm 154 of how good God has been good to all. But things change by the time of Jeremiah. David has been dead for a long time, and the Jews started to abandon God and worship idols. This is why Jeremiah warns them that God will punish them. After all the good God has given them, they have abandoned Him for idols.

Suppose you marry someone and did all you can to make that person happy. But in spite of that, this person cheats on you. You find out and kick him out of the house. Can you be blamed for divorcing him? Of course not! It was he who turned his back on you, in spite of all the good you did for him. Although kicking your husband out by itself is not a nice thing to do, you should not be judged on this apart from the context of his unfaithfulness.

In the same way God’s reaction must be looked in context of Israel’s faithfulness. God made a covenant with Israel. He will be their God and they with be His people. He made them a great people under David. But Israel latter on violated the terms of the covenant. This is why God chastised them.

War or Peace? EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

Again, you need to look at Exodus in its context. Moses is saying that the Lord is a man of war because of what He did to the Eqyptians. These Egyptians were the ones who enslaved the Jews, were going to kill every firstborn child, then they crossed the Red Sea by orders of the Pharoah to kill every man, woman, and child of the Jews. It would have been a total holocaust.

Sometimes war is necessary for peace. Lincoln was a man of war, but he did it to bring peace. Woodrow Wilson called Word War I “the War to end all wars” (of course, he was wrong. But this shows that his intention was to bring about peace). If we did not enter World War II, think of the tragic consequences this could have caused!

Now look at the context of Romans 15. Look at the beginning of this letter:

5 but after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up for thyself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;


6 who will render to every man according to his works:


7 to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life:


8 but unto them that are factious, and obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, shall be wrath and indignation,


9 tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek;


10 but glory and honor and peace to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek:




Romans 2

Here Paul says that those who disobey God shall receive wrath, indignation, tribulation, and anguish. This does not sound peaceful to me. So it is obvious that when Paul calls God the God of peace, he does not mean that God is some wimpy God, who allows us to live anyway we want without any consequences. No, to Paul, this God of peace is also a God of wrath. There are both sides to God. It is up to us as to which side of God we shall see on Judgement Day.

When Paul wrote “Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.”, this was not a promise, but a prayer. Paul is praying that his readers will not experience the other side to God, the Man of War, the God of wrath, the consuming prayer. He is praying that they will experience the other side to God, the God of peace. Paul is fully aware of the wrathful side to God. He is praying that his readers will instead experience God’s peaceful side.

The Egyptians experience God as the Man of War because of their wickedness. Paul is praying that his readers will experience God as a God of peace. There is no contradiction here.

Who is the father of Joseph? MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

Again, we need to look at the historical context.

In Leviticus, when a husband died, the husband’s brother is then required to marry the widow. Any children naturally begotten by the husband would then also be legal children of the brother. Matthew records that Jacob was the natural father of Joseph. Luke records the Heli was the legal father.

See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07204b.htm

 

[AV1611VET]

I'd like to query some contradictions as well please!
I'll stick to straight yes/no situations so as to try avoid this "its not a contradiction its a paradox" thing.

Did Jesus bear his own cross?​

Yes (John 19:17)​

No (Matthew 27:31-32)

When dealing with doctrines and incidents in the Bible, especially the Synoptic Gospels, one must take into account all the verses pertaining to that particular incident.

In John 19:16,17, we are told Christ himself bore the cross, and this, it is likely, he did for a part of the way; but, being exhausted with the scourging and other cruel usage which he had received, he was found incapable of bearing it alone; therefore they obliged Simon, not, I think, to bear it entirely, but to assist Christ, by bearing a part of it.

 

[JohnDB]

The thing with the staff and the Apostles in Mark but not Matthew or Luke is of special consideration.

Mark was penned by Peter's cousin Mark. He wrote out the stories that Peter regularly told. The staff was a symbol of spiritual leadership. As this story was told by Peter it clearly shows that Peter was the leader of the Apostles.

This later is important...but...James was the head of the Church. When we look to the Book of Acts we see James having the final word even after Peter spoke about the inclusion of the Gentiles. This was due to the fact that James was the leader of the Christian Church in Jerusalem and not Peter.

**and john sneaks off after opening this can of worms**

 

[packermann]

The list of iconsistancies is huge since the problems start in genesis and continue throughout!

This betrays a total lack of understanding on how the Bible developed – to say that it is has huge contradictions. Once this is understood, one would realize how ludicrous it is to say such a thing. This is not even assuming that the Bible is of supernatural origin. Even if the Bible was not the Word of God, it would be ridiculous to say that the Bible is full of inconsistencies.

The Bible was canonized at the end of the fourth century. It took two major councils during the span of 20 years. Invited to these councils were the top scholars, theologians, and historians at that time. Now, we Christians believe that the Holy Spirit worked through these events, but let’s put that aside for the sake of argument. These people looked at hundreds of different ancient documents and narrowed them down to what we have now. A big criteria for their acceptance was consistency. They would determine that any ancient that was hugely contradictory was a fraud. For instance they looked over TWENTY gospels. And they reject all of them because of their huge contradictions – except for the four gospels we have in the Bible.

I noticed that most of your alleged contradictions are in the gospels. Matthew contradicts John. Mark contradict Mark, etc. But if these “huge contradictions” exist, why did the scholars at the Councils reject all or some of the four gospels, like they did with 16 others? There was nothing would have prevented the Councils from doing that. There was nothing written in stone that said that the must come with four gospels. They could have come up with only three, or even just one. So why would they come up with these four gospels although they hugely contradicted each other, as you say?

Did the Councils accept these four gospels even though they knew they contradicted each other? This is highly unlikely. Why would they deliberately shoot themselves in the foot? Why would they provide the ammunition for the enemies of their religion? This does not make sense at all.

Were the Councils just not aware of these contradictions? This is more likely than the previous scenario, but still is unlikely. The members at these Councils were the greatest scholars of the time. Since Greek was still spoken at that time, they also were proficient in the language the Biblical documents were written in. Their research covered the span of twenty years. Their decisions were not made rashly. It is hard to believe that no one stood up at the Councils and said “Hey! We cannot accept both Matthew and John! There are some huge contradictions between them!”

Now let’s come down 16 centuries to you, Dragonbait. Correct me if I am wrong, but I doubt that you know Greek. I doubt that you have a degree in Biblical scholarship. And you are looking at ancient documents written 2,000 years ago, and you are trying to tell us that you have a better understanding of them to see contradictions in them, than the scholars only a few centuries after the fact???

This is likely a layman, who only knows how to take a temperature, casually reading a medical journal and pointing out what he sees as contradictions. Any doctor would laugh at him!

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

Sure. Here are some:

God good to all, or just a few? PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

The problem with the majority of these so-called contradictions is simply ignorance. Its ignorance of what Christians actually believe.

Case in point: the question above reveals an extremely shallow understanding of God. The claim is that there is a contradiction between two verses. However, from a Christian perspective, God is both a God of mercy and a God of justice. The question is ignorant of that fact.

Its also not a secret. Its a basic fact that God is both merciful and just - this has been known for centuries and its held by all the major branches of Christianity.

If one wants to understand how God is merciful to individuals, then they should read passages such as Romans 5. And the book of Revelation has numerous passages concerning how God's justice will be meted out.

In light of that, someone seriously thought to create a "contradiction" by slapping two different verses together? Please...perpetuating these types of so-called contradictions only make atheists and agnostics come across as shallow and reductionistic in their thinking. But I know they can do better.


LDG

 

[DerSchweik]

Mod Hat On​

(Unfortunately, we've had to remove a few posts that didn't meet the basic guidelines for posting in Exploring Christianity)
Friendly reminder:​

• EC is for non-Christians to explore Christianity with Christians.​
• Only non-Christians may start threads in EC.​
• Only Christians may respond to the OP (Original Poster)​
• All responses must be directed at the OP (no sidebar discussions that don't involve the OP; no debating with other members)​

Please READ the Posting Guidelines before posting in Exploring Christianity (EC) ​

Mod Hat OFF​

 

[GoodNewsJim]

Sure. Here are some:

God good to all, or just a few? PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

Yes, God is good to all. If he wasn't good to those who are evil, they wouldn't have even gotten the chance to live. They would have started existence in hell.

War or Peace? EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

Can't he both be a God of both war and peace? He isn't some one you want to start stuff with, but his intentions are for peace.

Who is the father of Joseph? MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

He is the supernaturally born son of God.
Joseph raised him as a dad though.

See there aren't any conflicts here.

Do you got more? I'm gonna read the rest of the thread now.

 

[ebia]

Hi everyone. I recently decided to be an Agnostic but I also recently decided to give Christianity a chance to explain itself. What I want to know is, how do you justify your belief in Christianity with the fact that the Bible contains so many errors and contradictions?

"Errors & contradictions" implies that the bible is a fact-book, which is entirely the wrong way of looking at it. The bible is a collection of literature, almost all of it narrative, much of it poetic, almost none of it straightforwardly factual in the absolute sense that your contradictions take it to be. Because it's not about teaching an arbitrary collection of historical irrelevant facts, but about relationships (between us, each other, creation, and God).