Would a contradiction make the Bible not true?

[Mathetes66]

You make a good point, NBB. The majority of those who repent & believe the gospel & follow the Lord Jesus Christ daily are not considered the strongest or the smartest or the most eloquent. Understanding the simple gospel, even a child can comprehend it & be spiritually born again, a second time, from above, by God.

The Creator God knows each person's heart & what your motive is, whether sincere or not or simply to win an argument. God is not known by the philosophy of men but by the preaching of the cross, the good news.

I Cor 1:18-29 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

20Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not know Him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

22Jews demand signs & Greeks search for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews & foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews & Gentiles, Christ the power of God & the wisdom of God.

25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom & the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength. Brothers, consider the time of your calling: not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were powerful; not many were of noble birth.

27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly & despised things of the world & the things that are not, to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast in His presence.

Psalm 119:130 The unfolding of your words gives light; it gives understanding to the simple.

 

[cvanwey]

Just a question, why you bother to make this threads?.

No. It's 'a little funny' that you would ask such a question, in light of the fact that it was posted in (this) arena:

"A forum for non-Christians to challenge the Christian faith, and for Christians to defend their faith."

 

[Mathetes66]

Is the Bible reliable & accurate?

One must recognize that Christian defenders & apologists have been ever since the beginning of Christianity. The attack on Christ & the Scriptures, both OT & NT has been relentless down through history, so today is no different.

It appears that a number of the original Bible autographs were stored in various local churches, from which either the original was written from or was sent to that local body of believers, clear up to the 4th century. People could compare their copies to the original back then.

The Oxford Latin Dictionary offers this definition for the nominal cognate, authenticum: “An original document, autograph.”

Lewis & Shorts, A Latin Dictionary, translates the Latin word, 'authenticus' as: original writing or autographs.

CHURCH FATHERS: The Prescription Against Heretics (Tertullian)

Prescription Against Heretics (Tertullian: Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, 155-220AD, of Berber origin) Ch. 35 & 36

"Our system is not behind any in date; on the contrary, it is earlier than all & this fact will be the evidence of that truth which everywhere occupies the first place. The apostles, again, nowhere condemn it; they rather defend it — a fact which will show that it comes from themselves. For that doctrine which they refrain from condemning, when they have condemned every strange opinion, they show to be their own & on that ground too, they defend it."

"Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over to the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own 'AUTHENTIC' writings are read, uttering the voice & representing the face of each of them severally.

Achaia is very near you, (in which) you find Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi; (& there too) you have the Thessalonians. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus.

Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood!

Where Peter endures a passion like his Lord's! Where Paul wins his crown in a death like John's where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, & thence remitted to his island-exile! See what she has learned, what taught, what fellowship has had with even (our) churches in Africa!

One Lord God does she acknowledge, the Creator of the universe & Christ Jesus (born) of the Virgin Mary, the Son of God the Creator & the Resurrection of the flesh; the law & the prophets she unites in one volume with the writings of evangelists & apostles, from which she drinks in her faith."

"This she seals with the water (of baptism), arrays with the Holy Spirit, feeds with the Eucharist, cheers with martyrdom & against such a discipline thus (maintained) she admits no gainsayer. This is the discipline which I no longer say foretold that heresies should come, but from which they proceeded. However, they were not of her, because they were opposed to her."

Tertullian goes on to discuss each of these ‘authentic writings’ as being found in the very churches to which they were written. He mentions Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, Ephesus, and Rome. He urges his reader to visit these sites to check out these authentic writings. This seems to suggest that he believed that these documents were the autographs.

But since they were no doubt written on papyrus & were not preserved in particularly dry climates, they could not have lasted more than two or three hundred years even under the best conditions in the ancient world, having been handled & many copies made from them, of those traveling there to do so.

Who was Polycarp? | GotQuestions.org

Polycarp was a 2nd-century Christian bishop of Smyrna (69-155AD) & mentioned in historical documents as a disciple of the Apostle John (wrote the gospel of John, I John 1-3 & Revelation). He wrote an epistle to the Philippians & it appears he mentions, quotes or alludes to every book in the New Testament.

Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians

 

[Sanoy]

I have. However, when someone like Dr. Michael L. Brown debated him, he would no longer debate Dr. Brown because he also was fluent in biblical Hebrew & several other Semitic languages, as well as Greek & Aramaic & would point out Tovia Singer's errors & misinterpretations. Dr. Brown is recognized as one of the foremost authorities on the Tenakh & Jewish history & the NT.

Here is Dr. Brown confronting what Tovia Singer said later & hoped that he had forgotten what actually happened & was said concerning the debate vs. possible lying.

Here is the actual debate.

Here is another concerning Daniel 9 and Psalm 22

The Genealogy of Jesus

Love Dr. Brown.

 

[Hazelelponi]

there is no genealogy through Mary.

As @Mathetes66 answered you in this post Would a contradiction make the Bible not true? I'll leave it to you to read up on that response..

 

[muichimotsu]

Biblical inerrancy is another topic which makes for a lively discussion. I like to say that we actually did have a document that was written by God Himself however due to a set of unfortunate circumstances and events, Moses destroyed His writing.

The problem with infallibility is how much of the message contained in the text has been altered through the editorial process over the millennia. I believe it stands up exceptionally well and has recently become stronger by archeological additions to its' authenticity.

Dr. Peter Williams has given a response to Dr. Bart Ehrman criticisms about the NT authorship.

Except I'd sooner believe Jesus was an historical figure than Moses, the evidence is supposedly far more compelling for the former than the latter

Authenticity and reliability in terms of transmission doesn't lend more credence to the truth of the claims themselves, they're totally different standards

 

[Norbert L]

Except I'd sooner believe Jesus was an historical figure than Moses, the evidence is supposedly far more compelling for the former than the latter

Authenticity and reliability in terms of transmission doesn't lend more credence to the truth of the claims themselves, they're totally different standards

And yet you are aware of the claims being made. People are free to accept or reject as they choose, we all have inner motivations which compel our decisions.

 

[muichimotsu]

And yet you are aware of the claims being made. People are free to accept or reject as they choose, we all have inner motivations which compel our decisions.

Yeah, sure, reduce us to fatalistic puppets, that's a hopeful view of the world. Biases being a thing don't mean we should just accept them instead of recognizing them as limiting a more critical search for truth.

 

[Norbert L]

Yeah, sure, reduce us to fatalistic puppets, that's a hopeful view of the world. Biases being a thing don't mean we should just accept them instead of recognizing them as limiting a more critical search for truth.

We're all "puppets", we don't get a say in the matter because death is fatalistic, it's a 100% sure thing. Jesus the God of the OT has been critically researched and there is an abundance of arguments pro and con out there. It's up the individual and our biases to decide what to accept as truth.

 

[muichimotsu]

We're all "puppets", we don't get a say in the matter because death is fatalistic, it's a 100% sure thing. Jesus the God of the OT has been critically researched and there is an abundance of arguments pro and con out there. It's up the individual and our biases to decide what to accept as truth.

I wouldn't disagree on death being certain (like impermanence in general) and that's a whole other topic as to whether any kind of immortality is desirable (topic in Ethics and Morality that I threw together)

But are all biases necessarily equal? And should we just reduce our standards to biases rather than seeking critical thought into finding the truth? Almost sounds like you're saying we choose our beliefs, but you're also saying it's about the standards we use to be compelled to consider something as true, different from choosing beliefs like we choose a flavor of ice cream or such. Deliberating on such things is normal, but not in terms of what is real and true.

Should we be as critical of our beliefs being justified and true as possible or just go with what seems compelling without investigation? I found Christianity compelling at one time, same with Deism, but I didn't stick with them because I challenged them further. The question at the core is whether the standard used to determine the claims of Christianity is true is the same we'd use to determine anything else or if it's special for whatever reason

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Greetings all, if it could be shown that the Bible contains contradictions, or even a single contradiction, would that prove the Bible false?

By definition, yes.

Note, although we can discuss contradictions or specifics later on in the thread, I would like to understand the Christian position on this general concept.

Good luck with that! I hope you like tap dance routines.

If there was a contradiction, would it cause you do change your faith?

It did for me.

 

[BigV]

However, when someone like Dr. Michael L. Brown debated him, he would no longer debate Dr. Brown because he also was fluent in biblical Hebrew & several other Semitic languages, as well as Greek & Aramaic & would point out Tovia Singer's errors & misinterpretations. Dr. Brown is recognized as one of the foremost authorities on the Tenakh & Jewish history & the NT.

Well, regardless of whether Dr Brown is an expert or not, Luke and Matthew have vastly different genealogies for Joseph! I get that Matthew is simplifying things and not mentioning the details that Luke does (i.e. not mentioning every name), but they contradict starting with Joseph's father and going back to David's son!

But you know what else is crazy? Joseph was not even Jesus' father! So what is the point of all these genealogies if they ultimately mean nothing?

I can't believe Tovia would not have taken it apart had they debated this point. Of course, Dr Brown won't even try, because his explanation works for the Christians while Tovia's arguments work for the Judaism practicing Jews.

 

[BigV]

One thing: i think the bible is true because i know Jesus, he can interact with people, and your attitude of sorts of "christianity is false because is not true and i know it" its just a little funny to me because of this. You could of be not more wrong.

Could you ask Jesus about why Satan seems to be winning based on the number of people that are rejecting Jesus? I'd really like to get his opinion on this one.

 

[Norbert L]

But are all biases necessarily equal?

The more egalitarian a society is, the equality of being free to become your bias becomes greater. In a very real way if a person is a Muslim, Buddhist or Christian in China your bias can be held against you. In that country biases are not equal and people are forced into re education.

Although not perfect, here in the west we've managed to create a small industry and pay the best of the best (e.g. Sam Harris debating William Craig at Notre Dame) to try and brain beat each other into submission without ever throwing the persons on either side of the issue into a re education camp.

The point is the more fair and just a society becomes, biases/real people become more equal and are allowed the freedom to live their life as they choose. Attempts to subjugate the other side into submission generally leads towards a totalitarian state and out of balance.

 

[BigV]

You make a good point, NBB. The majority of those who repent & believe the gospel & follow the Lord Jesus Christ daily are not considered the strongest or the smartest or the most eloquent. Understanding the simple gospel, even a child can comprehend it & be spiritually born again, a second time, from above, by God.

The Gospel is not easy to comprehend. Majority of Christians have no clue what it takes to be saved. When I am talking with Christians, face-to- face, I ask them whether repentance from sins is required to be saved, and most of them say... YES!

And then I ask.. How can that be, if people are saved by faith or belief in Jesus Christ?

And isn't repentance a work? After all, you are required to change your behavior in order to repent.

And then, there are verses that teach that good works are all that's required to be saved.

Matt. (NIV) 25 31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

 

[BigV]

As @Mathetes66 answered you in this post Would a contradiction make the Bible not true? I'll leave it to you to read up on that response..

One sure hallmark of a contradiction, is you have to be sending people links and references to the nuances that are a bit far too fetched.

I'm not sure if it was you or not on this thread, but someone posted about Mary's genealogy. The genealogies are so different that even Christians think they are talking about different people.

It's a good thing there are no contradictions, however. It would have really caused a confusion if genealogies were contradictory.

 

[muichimotsu]

The more egalitarian a society is, the equality of being free to become your bias becomes greater. In a very real way if a person is a Muslim, Buddhist or Christian in China your bias can be held against you. In that country biases are not equal and people are forced into re education.

Although not perfect, here in the west we've managed to create a small industry and pay the best of the best (e.g. Sam Harris debating William Craig at Notre Dame) to try and brain beat each other into submission without ever throwing the persons on either side of the issue into a re education camp.

The point is the more fair and just a society becomes, biases/real people become more equal and are allowed the freedom to live their life as they choose. Attempts to subjugate the other side into submission generally leads towards a totalitarian state and out of balance.

Freedom to believe does not mean freedom to have your beliefs taken seriously, that's a distinction I feel people don't make often enough

I wouldn't call your worldview a bias if it can be changed, whereas biases are more innate to a person in terms of cultural background and such.

Never seen debates presented in that fashion, or I certainly never regarded them as such: it's an exchange of ideas and the "winner" is determined by the audience, not that it really matters in terms of those thoroughly indoctrinated in the first place

Living your life as you choose based on your biases is not always something that we can allow, freedom of religious exercise, like every other freedom, has necessary limits to protect the rights of all people

Not sure why you think even remotely I would suggest a totalitarian society merely because I encourage critical thinking and skepticism

 

[Rodan6]

I believe the Bible is authentic, and that the contradictions contained in it help demonstrate this authenticity. If the Bible were a fraud, then we should expect to see evidence that it was written by a small number of people. But there is clear evidence of many, many different authors. This point is especially clear with regard to the New Testament, since the events recorded were written by persons who knew Jesus or knew of Him. Try an experiment where a story is told to 20 people in a room. Then ask each to write down a series of details about that story. While each of this group heard the same identical story, it's likely that no two persons among the group would have exactly the same notes on the story. The truth is that accounts SHOULD be expected to have differences. Instead of proving fraud, the contradictions instead prove the writings are authentic. The Apostles themselves were human and this fact demands that each would have their own viewpoints--even on the same events. To expect perfect synchronization in their writings (or writings attributed to them) is not reasonable.

While the Bible IS authentic, this does not mean it is perfect, true or false. The Bible reflects the opinions and viewpoints of the men who wrote it, colored by the age in which they lived. It contains many great truths, but includes many falsehoods as well. It is a wonderful resource, worthy of great respect and yes, even "love". Indeed, while I love my Bible, I observe it is a great mistake to worship it. Jesus Himself, never wrote a single word on paper and was careful to leave no written works behind. We would be wise to consider His reasons for doing this.

The misguided effort to worship writings has done much to impede the progress and embrace of Jesus' teachings on earth. I believe this is the greatest challenge facing the various Christian churches in our modern age. Bible worship serves to focus faith on the person of Jesus instead of, and sometimes at the expense of His teachings. It should be impossible for Christians to embrace bigotry and hate the way that so many do--but this is a fact of our time. Modern Christianity is sorely in need of serious re-alignment and focus. The place we need to begin is to put the teachings of Christ FIRST, then apply His powerful teachings to the other writings to gain understanding of them.

 

[muichimotsu]

Perfection is what's strongly implied in saying the Bible is infallible or inerrant. If all you're saying is the Bible is divinely inspired, you'd have to demonstrate the divine in the first place or it's special pleading

Do you think Jesus was necessarily literate or had literacy in being able to write (because they don't follow from each other)?

If you stand by the idea the bible is not true or false, then you basically put it in a category of having no real use at all, because you've reduced it to subjective sentimentality

Also, pretty sure authenticity and truth don't follow from one to the other. I could grant that these aren't made up, but that doesn't lend more credence to the stories themselves. Using the Rashomon example and such, sure, that's going to happen, but the problem is the attribution of supernatural aspects to the events they record post hoc, scholarship not remotely in agreement that most, if any of the Gospel writers knew Jesus directly, but were dealing secondhand with people who may have written about Jesus from firsthand account (Luke or Mark come to mind)

 

[Tone]

Greetings all, if it could be shown that the Bible contains contradictions, or even a single contradiction, would that prove the Bible false?

Note, although we can discuss contradictions or specifics later on in the thread, I would like to understand the Christian position on this general concept. If there was a contradiction, would it cause you do change your faith?

Not even close, because I don't hold it to Greek standards.