Jump to content


Photo

Contradictions In The Bible? List And Discuss


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 usafjay1976

usafjay1976

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Religion, Creation, Air Force, Traveling, Cooking, Movies
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New Jersey

Posted 29 October 2012 - 03:54 PM

I'm sure you've all heard it before. "The bible isn't accurate, it's a book full of contradictions!" My question to those that think there are contradictions: What are they?

Let's discuss.

#2 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2043 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 30 October 2012 - 04:24 PM

I'm sure you've all heard it before. "The bible isn't accurate, it's a book full of contradictions!" My question to those that think there are contradictions: What are they?

Let's discuss.


There are a number of lists of 'contradictions, mistakes' etc. put out by the skeptics concerning scripture:

Ex: http://www.infidels....radictions.html

http://www.thethinki...-contradictions

But all of them have been answered by competent Bible scholars and serious students of the Word countless times over the years.

Ex: (not saying I agree with all their answers...)

http://www.bringyou....etics/bible.htm

I'll get back with you tomorrow on the matter for further discussion.

Best wishes.

#3 usafjay1976

usafjay1976

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Religion, Creation, Air Force, Traveling, Cooking, Movies
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New Jersey

Posted 31 October 2012 - 06:58 AM

Hi Calypsis, thanks for the links. I've heard most of these before as well. I'm curious to hear thoughts from the evo side of the house. Look forward to your responses, of course. Good day!

Jason

#4 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 31 October 2012 - 07:05 AM

I'm sure you've all heard it before. "The bible isn't accurate, it's a book full of contradictions!" My question to those that think there are contradictions: What are they?

Let's discuss.

The geneology of Jesus in Luke 3 appears to contradict the geneology of Jesus in Matthew 1.

#5 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1046 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 04 November 2012 - 11:46 PM

The geneology of Jesus in Luke 3 appears to contradict the geneology of Jesus in Matthew 1.


Since no one has responded to this, I'll put in my two cents worth. Generally, the geneology in Matthew is regarded as that through Joseph, whereas the geneology in Luke is regarded as that through Mary. If you want me to take it any further than that, though, e.g. the theological reasons for providing both geneologies to support Jesus' claim to being Messiah and the rightful heir of David, I'll have to dust off a few books about jewish tradition and inheritance. Posted Image

#6 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 05 November 2012 - 06:57 AM

Since no one has responded to this, I'll put in my two cents worth. Generally, the geneology in Matthew is regarded as that through Joseph, whereas the geneology in Luke is regarded as that through Mary. If you want me to take it any further than that, though, e.g. the theological reasons for providing both geneologies to support Jesus' claim to being Messiah and the rightful heir of David, I'll have to dust off a few books about jewish tradition and inheritance. Posted Image

I will wait for your response...I am not in a hurry. I read the reasoning provided in http://www.bringyou....etics/bible.htm but I was not convinced because it seemed to gloss over a lot that, from my point of view, needed some more supporting evidence.

#7 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 13 December 2012 - 06:24 AM

Since no one has responded to this, I'll put in my two cents worth. Generally, the geneology in Matthew is regarded as that through Joseph, whereas the geneology in Luke is regarded as that through Mary. If you want me to take it any further than that, though, e.g. the theological reasons for providing both geneologies to support Jesus' claim to being Messiah and the rightful heir of David, I'll have to dust off a few books about jewish tradition and inheritance. Posted Image

Bump?

#8 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1046 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 14 December 2012 - 11:12 PM

Bump?


Sorry Jonas. I haven't forgotten this. I've just been way too busy to sit down and adequately respond to this and several other posts on the forum that I have been wanting to address. In fact, I still have three more posts in my Problem of Homoplasy thread that I plan to make that I haven't been able to finish. I'll get there eventually Posted Image

#9 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1046 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 25 December 2012 - 09:15 PM

Posted Image Interesting. I love a good challenge. CMI's daily e-mail today was on the genealogies of Jesus, where Lita Cosner argues that both genealogies are that of Joseph, just through two different lines. In contrast, Paul Younan, an Aramaic Primacist, argues the opposite of my response to you and claims that Matthew gives the genealogy of Mary, whereas Luke gives the genealogy of Joseph. I was aware of Younan's arguments from the days when I researched the claims of Aramaic Primacy and subsequently rejected them for many reasons, the primary one being their fundamental premise (and current scholastic opinion) that Aramaic was the lingua franca of the jews at the time of Jesus (for a concise but well researched rebuttal of that claim I would recommend Douglas Hamp's book Discovering The Language of Jesus). I'll have to dig into it more as I find the time Jonas Posted Image

#10 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 26 December 2012 - 03:06 PM

I think at least some of these have been discussed previously.

#11 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 08 January 2013 - 06:44 AM

I think at least some of these have been discussed previously.


The site's search engine did not reveal anywhere that it was discussed on this forum. In the places where you have seen it discussed, was there evidence that both geneologies are true? Based on what we have seen here, multiple possiblities have been cited but they all hinge on one assumption...that the Bible does not contradict itself. On the face of it, the Bible does contradict itself in those two passages. Attempts at resolving those contradictions have resulted in several "might haves" and "could have beens".

Now, if you won't accept explanations for evolution of the eye that include "might haves" and "could have beens", why would you accept the same type of explanation for a troubling passage in the Bible? Isn't that a bit biased?

#12 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 08 January 2013 - 12:20 PM

^^This objection could of easily been answered with a google search.

http://www.apologeti...#38;article=932

First hit by the way. Apparently since the gentleman didn't stumble across the answer he didn't look hard enough, probably because he didn't want answers.

#13 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5714 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 08 January 2013 - 02:26 PM


^^This objection could of easily been answered with a google search.

http://www.apologeti...amp;article=932

First hit by the way. Apparently since the gentleman didn't stumble across the answer he didn't look hard enough, probably because he didn't want answers.

I've seen this happen before, perhaps there is a new rule, whereby if you cannot find something on the first page of a goggle search it doesn't exist ;-)

#14 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 09 September 2013 - 11:38 PM


Now, if you won't accept explanations for evolution of the eye that include "might haves" and "could have beens", why would you accept the same type of explanation for a troubling passage in the Bible? Isn't that a bit biased?

 

There are a number of major issues with your attempted line of reasoning, and sarcastic retort above:

1) Attempting to correlate supposed contradictions in Hebrew genealogy, and a fully presupposed macro-evolution of the eye, is not only "NOT" comparing apples to oranges, but it isn't even comparing apples to grains of sand! Jewish people, to this day, keep copious notes on their genealogy. Explanations for the macro-evolution of the eye, on the other hand, is wholly presupposed with evolution in mind!

2) Attempting to hijack a thread to "soap-box" your macroevolution faith, is a pretty juvenile tactic.

3) Misusing the word "Biased", in so heavy-handed a manner, is pretty inane as well.



#15 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5714 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 13 September 2013 - 08:42 AM

I do have a kind-of contradiction in the Bible which I had brought up with the elders of my former Church and who didn't really answer it. Was directed to a book, which the book basically stated that the Bible is God's word therefore there are no contradictions, that didn't explain the specific issue nor does it help when faced with people who doubt the Bible.

 

My issue is this, all four gospels have a different account of Jesus' resurrection regarding the angels at the tomb, this could simply be a difference in writing styles.

 

 

Additionally another thing that bugs me is the creation of the human race from Adam and Eve since that implies brother and sister had kids together.. :(



#16 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 13 September 2013 - 01:11 PM

I do have a kind-of contradiction in the Bible which I had brought up with the elders of my former Church and who didn't really answer it. Was directed to a book, which the book basically stated that the Bible is God's word therefore there are no contradictions, that didn't explain the specific issue nor does it help when faced with people who doubt the Bible.

 

My issue is this, all four gospels have a different account of Jesus' resurrection regarding the angels at the tomb, this could simply be a difference in writing styles.

 

Hi Gilbo. smile.png

 

One thing that you probably have already thought about is that a certain amount of contradictions (or what seems to us to be contradictions) is bound to exist in written accounts where different people describe the same event. A complete lack of contradictions is evidence of corroboration. Too many contradictions indicates that something is definitely fishy. When it comes to the gospels, I think that the frequency of "contraditions" in the gospels is consistent with the kinds of stories that are being told. A simple truth, or simple events occuring during a short period of time, should produce few contradictions, whereas more complicated events that occur over a longer period of time would produce more contradictions.

 

The resurrection story seems to be of the second category. Things started happening while it was still dark and continued until after dawn. Most likely it was complicated by the fact that people were running back and forth in excitement, and that each of the writers only wrote the details that they thought were important, or at least about the things that they knew about.

 

I think you'd agree that in a confused situation it isn't particularly strange that the accounts don't line up exactly. The question we should be asking ourselves however, is whether or not the stories can be harmonized.

 

If the resurrection stories were fictional inventions of the gospel writers then most likely the contradictory details would be almost impossible to harmonize. If on the other hand they were each describing fragments of a large, complicated sequence of events then it should be possible to harmonize them into one story.

 

Of course it is not easy to harmonize four different stories into one, and with any confidence make the claim that this is exactly what happened, but the fact remains that the accounts actually have been harmonized:

 

http://www.bible.ca/...ons-refuted.htm

 

Additionally another thing that bugs me is the creation of the human race from Adam and Eve since that implies brother and sister had kids together..

 

That's true, but since S@xual relationships of that kind were not forbidden until a few thousand years after Adam and Eve I don't think it was as much a moral issue as one that concerned increasing distortion in the gene pool. Even Abraham, the father of faith, married his half sister with, no indication in the scriptures that this was a bad thing.



#17 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 14 September 2013 - 06:10 AM

I do have a kind-of contradiction in the Bible which I had brought up with the elders of my former Church and who didn't really answer it. Was directed to a book, which the book basically stated that the Bible is God's word therefore there are no contradictions, that didn't explain the specific issue nor does it help when faced with people who doubt the Bible.

 

My issue is this, all four gospels have a different account of Jesus' resurrection regarding the angels at the tomb, this could simply be a difference in writing styles.

 

The four gospel accounts were written by FOUR different people, from FOUR different perspectives, none of which contradict the others, but rather recount what they either personally saw, or in the case of John-Mark, what Peter saw, and in the case of Luke, what those who he interviewed saw. They don’t all HAVE to say the exact same things, but all the things have to fit severally!

 

 

 

Additionally another thing that bugs me is the creation of the human race from Adam and Eve since that implies brother and sister had kids together..

 

 

Adam and Eve were not "Brother and Sister" (i.e. siblings) in the manner that you and your siblings are. Further, their genes/DNA were pure, as the original created.



#18 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5714 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 September 2013 - 01:50 AM

Hi Gilbo. smile.png

 

One thing that you probably have already thought about is that a certain amount of contradictions (or what seems to us to be contradictions) is bound to exist in written accounts where different people describe the same event. A complete lack of contradictions is evidence of corroboration. Too many contradictions indicates that something is definitely fishy. When it comes to the gospels, I think that the frequency of "contraditions" in the gospels is consistent with the kinds of stories that are being told. A simple truth, or simple events occuring during a short period of time, should produce few contradictions, whereas more complicated events that occur over a longer period of time would produce more contradictions.

 

The resurrection story seems to be of the second category. Things started happening while it was still dark and continued until after dawn. Most likely it was complicated by the fact that people were running back and forth in excitement, and that each of the writers only wrote the details that they thought were important, or at least about the things that they knew about.

 

I think you'd agree that in a confused situation it isn't particularly strange that the accounts don't line up exactly. The question we should be asking ourselves however, is whether or not the stories can be harmonized.

 

If the resurrection stories were fictional inventions of the gospel writers then most likely the contradictory details would be almost impossible to harmonize. If on the other hand they were each describing fragments of a large, complicated sequence of events then it should be possible to harmonize them into one story.

 

Of course it is not easy to harmonize four different stories into one, and with any confidence make the claim that this is exactly what happened, but the fact remains that the accounts actually have been harmonized:

 

http://www.bible.ca/...ons-refuted.htm

 

No worries so what was the explanation for the different references to angels?

 

I assume it was only the women who saw it so if eye-witness testimonies were used then all four gospels would have had the same eye-witness/s sources. Additionally I assume that it wouldn't have been busy at that time since they were the first ones to witness the event, hence implying no-one else was around.

 

That's true, but since S@xual relationships of that kind were not forbidden until a few thousand years after Adam and Eve I don't think it was as much a moral issue as one that concerned increasing distortion in the gene pool. Even Abraham, the father of faith, married his half sister with, no indication in the scriptures that this was a bad thing.

 

Didn't know that, though I am having a hard time imagining a world where sisters and brothers can marry each other

 

 

The four gospel accounts were written by FOUR different people, from FOUR different perspectives, none of which contradict the others, but rather recount what they either personally saw, or in the case of John-Mark, what Peter saw, and in the case of Luke, what those who he interviewed saw. They don’t all HAVE to say the exact same things, but all the things have to fit severally!

 

As mentioned above if they use the same eyewitnesses (due to the small number at the event), who were together at the same time (so assuming the same perception for being in the same place / eye-view), then there should be no / little differences in terms of the details.

Unless perhaps some of the writers preferred to embellish parts but that opens a new can of worms sad.png

 

Adam and Eve were not "Brother and Sister" (i.e. siblings) in the manner that you and your siblings are. Further, their genes/DNA were pure, as the original created.

 

I didn't say Adam and Eve were brother and sister, though the kids they would have had would be siblings, hence the problem.



#19 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 16 September 2013 - 08:37 AM

No worries so what was the explanation for the different references to angels?

 

I assume it was only the women who saw it so if eye-witness testimonies were used then all four gospels would have had the same eye-witness/s sources. Additionally I assume that it wouldn't have been busy at that time since they were the first ones to witness the event, hence implying no-one else was around.

 

The Bible seems to mention about five women who returned to the tomb and saw the angel/angels, (although I wouldn't rule out the possibility of their being more). The gospels were written a few decades after the fact, probably at different times, and so I guess it is possible that the different writers may have spoken to different women, depending on the availability of these women at the time. Whether or not all of these women saw, and remembered, everything that occurred at the tomb is impossible to say. But whatever the case, neither the gospel of Matthew, nor that of Mark say that there was only one angel, even though one can easily assume that there was given the few lines of text that we have from that particular part of the story. It could well be that one of the angels had a more prominent role than the other, and "did the talking", so to speak. In that context, it may well be that the emphasis was given to what the angel said, rather than mentioning the other angel, who possibly even have been precluded from the view of all the women.

 

This is speculation of course, but I think that something like that is more likely than the idea that all the stories were made up, or contained direct errors.

 

 

Didn't know that, though I am having a hard time imagining a world where sisters and brothers can marry each other.

 

That's true. From our perspective, and in the age that we live in it sure seems disturbing, as do some of the other accounts in the OT that also seem strange from our point of view. Perhaps it was somewhat different back then. We know that the process of death started when Adam and Eve sinned. From that time on the gene pool of mankind has been deteriorating. But it is possible that this deterioration was not only physical, but spiritual as well. After the fall, Adam and Eve suddenly realized that they were naked. They started to experience something that they had never felt before - shame. If consciousness of sin has slowly increased in mankind down through the ages then it is possible that the way they felt and the emotions they had were not exactly the ones we have today. In any case, incest back then would have been a necessity, sanctified by God, and for that reason I doubt that it would have had the same impact as it does today in our society.



#20 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5714 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 17 September 2013 - 02:51 AM

The Bible seems to mention about five women who returned to the tomb and saw the angel/angels, (although I wouldn't rule out the possibility of their being more). The gospels were written a few decades after the fact, probably at different times, and so I guess it is possible that the different writers may have spoken to different women, depending on the availability of these women at the time. Whether or not all of these women saw, and remembered, everything that occurred at the tomb is impossible to say. But whatever the case, neither the gospel of Matthew, nor that of Mark say that there was only one angel, even though one can easily assume that there was given the few lines of text that we have from that particular part of the story. It could well be that one of the angels had a more prominent role than the other, and "did the talking", so to speak. In that context, it may well be that the emphasis was given to what the angel said, rather than mentioning the other angel, who possibly even have been precluded from the view of all the women.

 

This is speculation of course, but I think that something like that is more likely than the idea that all the stories were made up, or contained direct errors.

 

 

That's true. From our perspective, and in the age that we live in it sure seems disturbing, as do some of the other accounts in the OT that also seem strange from our point of view. Perhaps it was somewhat different back then. We know that the process of death started when Adam and Eve sinned. From that time on the gene pool of mankind has been deteriorating. But it is possible that this deterioration was not only physical, but spiritual as well. After the fall, Adam and Eve suddenly realized that they were naked. They started to experience something that they had never felt before - shame. If consciousness of sin has slowly increased in mankind down through the ages then it is possible that the way they felt and the emotions they had were not exactly the ones we have today. In any case, incest back then would have been a necessity, sanctified by God, and for that reason I doubt that it would have had the same impact as it does today in our society.

 

Thanks for your explanations, you've given me much to ponder about :)






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users