Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Gott allein zur Ehre

"the Bible Is Full Of Contradictions"

Recommended Posts

First of all, I apologise if this was posted in the wrong forum. I understand that there is a Bible Q&A forum up there, but I've told myself to stay out of the debate section until I have enough confidence to start debating.

 

If this is inappropriate for this area, please, by all means, move it to the correct one. :)

 

I've been studying the Bible using hermenutic methods taught at the Dallas Theological Seminary, through the Dispensationalist lens, for maybe over 13 years now, I think, and I've seen just how the title of this thread is so untrue. From Genesis to Revelation, written over a span of over a thousand years, by dozens of different authors, it is the completely and perfectly self-consistent Spirit-inspired Word of God. And yet one of the things I keep hearing about is "the Bible is full of contradictions", by people who obviously have no reason, nor motivation to study it as in-depth as I have. Occasionally even by some people who have intensely studied it, albeit unguided. Is there a way or method, for me to rebut this without having to counter each of the many, many examples of apparent contradictions they might throw at me? Something quicker and more efficient?

 

Thanks again, and God Bless you all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One simple statement: "If you can show me unequivocal, unbiased evidence that errors exist in the text, I'll admit you're right." They can't, and so they resort to shallow attacks on apparent contradictions that, upon a second inspection, aren't contradictory at all.

 

If they don't want to put forth the effort to collect evidence supporting their position and verify it personally, then they obviously have a problem with our God and are trying to shake the faith of the weak or new Christians.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its easy to say that anything is full of contradictions when one cherry-picks and uses out-of-context prevarications in their arguments; and this is the tactic you'll usually find used by the Bible scoffers. Normally you can simply take them back to the contextual meanings and pull their argument apart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh. This is one of the main falsehoods hurled all the time on the internet. I've found that this type of unbeliever is really not interested in the contextual answers however, they're either thoroughly convinced that they are correct and the Christian is a gullible "moron" for believing that the Bible is God's Word and only penned by man, or they refuse to accept the rational, logical, theologically based answers to their questions in order to simply annoy and disparage. I've never met ONE who took this position of "the Bible is full of contradictions" and have been able to budge them one inch from their position. It's futile, really, so I don't bother much any more. If I've tried once, I've tried dozens of times. So now I just state what I believe, why I am sure the Bible is 100% correct, and state the Biblical answer and then just leave it alone. Because debating these types only starts a feeding frenzy from the unsaved and the more that are drawn into the bloody waters the more empowered and convinced they become.

 

Here is just one useful site that addresses "contradictions": http://www.philvaz.c...bible.htm#INDEX

 

Anyway, it occurred to me that IF there actually was an authentic Biblical error, surely somebody would be accredited with finding it. Of course this would be the case. And surely this person, the first to find the error would be famous for finding this error in the worlds most famous book. And surely this error would rock the Christian world, because if there was an authenticated error in the Bible, then how much else may be false that we don't know about? And most importantly to the internet discussion, this famous person would be found easily using a Google search. But this is not the case because this person does not exist, nor do genuine Biblical errors. Only perceived errors. Only twisted scripture that appears to be contradictory. Only lies that the Bible has contradictions. That is all that exists, and all that will exist.

 

God is wise, and that's why He has made the PERFECT (what I believe):

 

 

The Bible is the inspired, directed, protected, and inerrant Word of God, because MY God,

the Almighty Creator of the Heavens and the Earth, could and would provide that for His creation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been studying the Bible using hermenutic methods taught at the Dallas Theological Seminary, through the Dispensationalist lens, for maybe over 13 years now, I think, and I've seen just how the title of this thread is so untrue. From Genesis to Revelation, written over a span of over a thousand years, by dozens of different authors, it is the completely and perfectly self-consistent Spirit-inspired Word of God. And yet one of the things I keep hearing about is "the Bible is full of contradictions", by people who obviously have no reason, nor motivation to study it as in-depth as I have. Occasionally even by some people who have intensely studied it, albeit unguided. Is there a way or method, for me to rebut this without having to counter each of the many, many examples of apparent contradictions they might throw at me? Something quicker and more efficient?

 

Thanks again, and God Bless you all.

 

There are six different Bibles containing anywhere from 24 to 81 books, perhaps you could state which Bible you have been studying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been studying the Bible using hermenutic methods taught at the Dallas Theological Seminary, through the Dispensationalist lens, for maybe over 13 years now, I think, and I've seen just how the title of this thread is so untrue. From Genesis to Revelation, written over a span of over a thousand years, by dozens of different authors, it is the completely and perfectly self-consistent Spirit-inspired Word of God. And yet one of the things I keep hearing about is "the Bible is full of contradictions", by people who obviously have no reason, nor motivation to study it as in-depth as I have. Occasionally even by some people who have intensely studied it, albeit unguided. Is there a way or method, for me to rebut this without having to counter each of the many, many examples of apparent contradictions they might throw at me? Something quicker and more efficient?

 

Thanks again, and God Bless you all.

There are six different Bibles containing anywhere from 24 to 81 books, perhaps you could state which Bible you have been studying?

 

Actually, Artie, there is only One (1) Bible, containing sixty-six (66) books (39 Old Testament and 27 New Testament). The Twenty-seven books of the New Testament were fully recognized as ‘Scripture’ before the end of the second century; long before any of the supposed canonical counsels of the third and fourth centuries. In fact, ALL of the New Testament was so extensively quoted by the ‘Early Church Fathers’ prior to the end of the second century, secular sources, and Talmudic sources, (see: Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Ploycarp, Hermas, Didache, Papias, Irenaeus, Diognetus, Marcion, Justin Martyr, Muratorian, Clement of Alexandria, Tertulian, etc…) that the entire New Testament can be reconstructed verbatim sans eleven verses.

 

Gott allein zur Ehre, what you have seen posted here by Artie, is just another example of misunderstanding (ignorance), or misdirection, and misrepresentation (etc…) used by Bible scoffers, much like the supposed Biblical contradiction misrepresentation. The question now, is whether or not it was posted as intentional misrepresentation by Artie to cause spectacle in this forum; or rather that Artie simply regurgitated it from another Biblical scoffing site, or other some other inauthentic source as if it were an authentic argument.

 

Now, back to the OP… Is there a particular supposed Biblical contradiction you had in mind? If so, site the verse if you would (quite often, the supposed contradiction is extra-Biblical in nature).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, I apologise if this was posted in the wrong forum. I understand that there is a Bible Q&A forum up there, but I've told myself to stay out of the debate section until I have enough confidence to start debating.

 

If this is inappropriate for this area, please, by all means, move it to the correct one. :)

 

I've been studying the Bible using hermenutic methods taught at the Dallas Theological Seminary, through the Dispensationalist lens, for maybe over 13 years now, I think, and I've seen just how the title of this thread is so untrue. From Genesis to Revelation, written over a span of over a thousand years, by dozens of different authors, it is the completely and perfectly self-consistent Spirit-inspired Word of God. And yet one of the things I keep hearing about is "the Bible is full of contradictions", by people who obviously have no reason, nor motivation to study it as in-depth as I have. Occasionally even by some people who have intensely studied it, albeit unguided. Is there a way or method, for me to rebut this without having to counter each of the many, many examples of apparent contradictions they might throw at me? Something quicker and more efficient?

 

Thanks again, and God Bless you all.

 

The thing that most people fail to understand is that supposed contradictions are actually our misunderstand of:

 

1) The situations that make things different for that particular instance.

2) The two different covenants that are talked about that make things different

3) That there are different levels of faith that make our responsibilities either more (as being a shepherd) or less (as being sheep). Or mostly innocent (new in Christ, children, etc...). Most people do not understand that God has provided a standard where you are responsible for what you "currently know", and what you currently know is what you will be judged on.

 

Example: If you take a 2 Christians, one that's been one for 40 years, and one that's been one for 6 months. Would it be fair to judge the 6 month Christian by the same standard as the 40 year one is going to be judged by? Of course not.

 

James 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

 

You see you have to "know" what good is before you know what evil (sin) is. And until you do you are considered innocent of that sin because you did not "know" it was a sin. But as soon as you become aware, you also become responsible, So the judgment of each person in Heaven will be based upon what they knew. This will make people that are:

 

1) Mentally ill

2) To immature (children).

etc...

 

These will be mostly innocent. Because until a person is able to understand the choice of salvation, and then understand what sin is as they learn, their judgment will be mainly innocent. In this way for each person the judgment is fair because it's according to what they were able to understand and what they knew.

 

How can that be? This is why God does not show us absolute evidence like appearing before us etc... Absolute evidence requires absolute judgment because with absolute evidence there would be no excuse for any doubt, sin, etc... Our judgments regardless of our knowledge would be the same for everyone and very few would meet that standard. So not giving us absolute evidence (appearing before us etc...) is God actually making it easier for us to get to Heaven. It's not easy easy, it's just less impossible to meet because we are not required to be perfect to get there. Absolute evidence would require perfection.

 

So our thinking that there are contradictions is because we think there is a "set standard" for everyone and when that standard seems to very a little it's counted as a contradiction. When in reality that standard varies per person according to what they knew.

 

Example: If you just got saved and soon after ended up in Heaven. Would you want to be held to the standard you did not even get to know or even learn yet? Would it be fair? Of course not.

 

So this is why the Bible often says different things because it's different circumstances. Because if we all were held to the highest standard as soon as we were saved we would not be able to reach it and fail the judgment. Would that be fair?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, Artie, there is only One (1) Bible, containing sixty-six (66) books (39 Old Testament and 27 New Testament).

There are six different Bibles. They are:

 

1. The Jewish Bible

2. The Protestant Bible

3. The Catholic Bible

4. The Anglican Bible

5. The Greek-Orthodox Bible

6. The Ethiopian Bible

 

You will find the differences described at http://bessel.org/bibles.htm

 

I asked which Bible because the Protestant Bible contains 66 books and the Catholic for instance contains 73 and there are also internal differences in the Book of Daniel. I have spoken with Catholics on other forums who have stated quite indignantly that the protestants have removed parts of the word of God and have called the Protestant Bible "the abridged Bible". I don't see anything wrong with simply stating which Bible he had been studying just to avoid the misunderstanding that one Bible is somehow "better" than any other.

Gott allein zur Ehre, what you have seen posted here by Artie, is just another example of misunderstanding (ignorance), or misdirection, and misrepresentation (etc…) used by Bible scoffers, much like the supposed Biblical contradiction misrepresentation. The question now, is whether or not it was posted as intentional misrepresentation by Artie to cause spectacle in this forum; or rather that Artie simply regurgitated it from another Biblical scoffing site, or other some other inauthentic source as if it were an authentic argument.

Gott allein zur Ehre, I am simply saying that if people maintain that only the Bible with 66 books is the one true Bible it might create bad feelings in people who believe in any of the other Bibles. So when you say you have studied the Bible you might want to add which Bible and that you mean no disrespect to believers in other Bibles.

Now, back to the OP… Is there a particular supposed Biblical contradiction you had in mind? If so, site the verse if you would (quite often, the supposed contradiction is extra-Biblical in nature).

 

Some Christians say that there are no contradictions, some say there are but that they are of no consequence to the main message. I'm sure a person who says that there are no contradictions can explain every single one and will say that all the Christians who think there are contradictions are all mistaken or misguided. For me to try would therefore be an exercise in futility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Now, back to the OP… Is there a particular supposed Biblical contradiction you had in mind? If so, site the verse if you would (quite often, the supposed contradiction is extra-Biblical in nature).

 

Some Christians say that there are no contradictions, some say there are but that they are of no consequence to the main message. I'm sure a person who says that there are no contradictions can explain every single one and will say that all the Christians who think there are contradictions are all mistaken or misguided. For me to try would therefore be an exercise in futility.

 

So you disagree with the premise "there are no contradictions in the Bible", yet you refuse to support your disagreement with any examples? The most you are willing to offer is an appeal to "authority of Christians that agree with you" without even one example of scripture that THEY considered contradictory?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked which Bible because the Protestant Bible contains 66 books and the Catholic for instance contains 73 and there are also internal differences in the Book of Daniel. I have spoken with Catholics on other forums who have stated quite indignantly that the protestants have removed parts of the word of God and have called the Protestant Bible "the abridged Bible". I don't see anything wrong with simply stating which Bible he had been studying just to avoid the misunderstanding that one Bible is somehow "better" than any other.

 

I'd venture to guess that since this is not a "Catholic" forum per se, that everyone here naturally and rightfully assumes we are discussing the Protestant Bible, not the Catholic Bible. The CB contains apocryphal books and I've read that they should be used for historical reasons only, not for doctrine. For example, in the Book of Maccabees, the doctrine of purgatory is derived. Protestants do not believe in purgatory and this is a Catholic doctrine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are six different Bibles. They are:[/color]

 

1. The Jewish Bible

2. The Protestant Bible

3. The Catholic Bible

4. The Anglican Bible

5. The Greek-Orthodox Bible

6. The Ethiopian Bible

 

You will find the differences described at http://bessel.org/bibles.htm

First, there is no such thing as a “Jewish” Bible. The term “Bible” is from from Koine Greek τὰ βιβλία (ta biblia) which is translated as "the books". The Jewish scripture is known as the Tanakh. These are the 39 Old Testament contained in the Old Testament of the Bible.

 

 

I asked which Bible because the Protestant Bible contains 66 books and the Catholic for instance contains 73 and there are also internal differences in the Book of Daniel. I have spoken with Catholics on other forums who have stated quite indignantly that the protestants have removed parts of the word of God and have called the Protestant Bible "the abridged Bible". I don't see anything wrong with simply stating which Bible he had been studying just to avoid the misunderstanding that one Bible is somehow "better" than any other.

Gott allein zur Ehre, I am simply saying that if people maintain that only the Bible with 66 books is the one true Bible it might create bad feelings in people who believe in any of the other Bibles. So when you say you have studied the Bible you might want to add which Bible and that you mean no disrespect to believers in other Bibles.

Other than the texts I mentioned, which all date to within the first century (for the New Testament), and prior to that for the Tanakh, what are the dates of these other “Bibles” you are claiming? Further, which of the New Testament books were recognized as “scripture” to the Christians of the first two centuries?

 

Once you have answered those two questions, you’ll understand why there is only ONE Bible.

 

Some Christians say that there are no contradictions, some say there are but that they are of no consequence to the main message. I'm sure a person who says that there are no contradictions can explain every single one and will say that all the Christians who think there are contradictions are all mistaken or misguided. For me to try would therefore be an exercise in futility.

 

First – It doesn’t matter what “some” Christians say, what matters is what the truth is. The futilities here are these assertions which are staged solely “for creating a spectacle”.

Second – The honest searcher would simply say where they are having a problem, not skirt the issue with false allegations and innuendoes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I asked which Bible because the Protestant Bible contains 66 books and the Catholic for instance contains 73 and there are also internal differences in the Book of Daniel. I have spoken with Catholics on other forums who have stated quite indignantly that the protestants have removed parts of the word of God and have called the Protestant Bible "the abridged Bible". I don't see anything wrong with simply stating which Bible he had been studying just to avoid the misunderstanding that one Bible is somehow "better" than any other.

 

I'd venture to guess that since this is not a "Catholic" forum per se, that everyone here naturally and rightfully assumes we are discussing the Protestant Bible, not the Catholic Bible. The CB contains apocryphal books and I've read that they should be used for historical reasons only, not for doctrine. For example, in the Book of Maccabees, the doctrine of purgatory is derived. Protestants do not believe in purgatory and this is a Catholic doctrine.

 

 

This seems to be an issue that is lost on Artie within a few threads here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems to be an issue that is lost on Artie within a few threads here...

 

Well, let's hope that Artie is here with an open mind for the truth. Let's hope and pray that he's seeking.

 

"Salvation lies within" -- The Shawshank Redemption :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, back to the OP… Is there a particular supposed Biblical contradiction you had in mind? If so, site the verse if you would (quite often, the supposed contradiction is extra-Biblical in nature).

Some Christians say that there are no contradictions, some say there are but that they are of no consequence to the main message. I'm sure a person who says that there are no contradictions can explain every single one and will say that all the Christians who think there are contradictions are all mistaken or misguided. For me to try would therefore be an exercise in futility.

 

So you disagree with the premise "there are no contradictions in the Bible", yet you refuse to support your disagreement with any examples? The most you are willing to offer is an appeal to "authority of Christians that agree with you" without even one example of scripture that THEY considered contradictory?

 

Its amazing how that works, is it not? There’s no doubt that Artie can come up with a slew of the same old tired “Biblical contradictions” anyone can find on most Atheistic apologetic sites (which are all easily dismantled). But he then hedges his bet with the old “For me to try would therefore be an exercise in futility” two-step.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This seems to be an issue that is lost on Artie within a few threads here...

 

Well, let's hope that Artie is here with an open mind for the truth. Let's hope and pray that he's seeking.

 

"Salvation lies within" -- The Shawshank Redemption :)

 

 

We'll see... We'll see...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. I didn't expect so many replies in such a short time. This really says something about it... Up until now I didn't really get some solid facts on the original canon, but... wow. Thank you very much!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.mikeschristiancorner.com/contradictions.html

 

Most people who want there to be contradictions will not seek out an explanation as to why they are not contradictions. They really just want to skip to the part where they reject God's authority. "For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1 Corinthians 1:18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your right, they want to disobey God and reject his authority. To disobey God is to obey evil. I find it funny that athiests say that God "wants" evil, yet the bible shows us that to obey peace and love is to obey God. So to say God wants evil is to essentially say that God wants disobedience, although God shows us through out the bible that he wants us to choose the path of obedience. God is powerfull, we are weak, the fact that God lets us have true freewill just shows how much stronger he is than us. He hurts when we hurt, yet he is able to take the pain and contain himself to let us have true freewill. Your disobedience is your choice, God will not make that choice for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your right, they want to disobey God and reject his authority. To disobey God is to obey evil. I find it funny that athiests say that God "wants" evil, yet the bible shows us that to obey peace and love is to obey God. So to say God wants evil is to essentially say that God wants disobedience,

 

 

What I've learned from unbelievers is that this false premise about God, that He desires evil, is merely a cop out. The Bible teaches that God is Holy, perfect, loving, and thus incapable of evil. Evil exists because of man's free will to choose to sin. For an unbeliever to embrace these Biblical truths, they must assume the responsibility of being the reason that evil exists. But their selfish pride does not allow this, thus they blame God instead.

 

Much of the world can be understood when viewed from the perspective of this, the original sin called 'pride'.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice this as well in other message boards where atheists or non believers twist words around to fit their needs or take one sentence claiming it doesn't make sense without reading the rest of the passage. That being said, I do have a question. There is a verse in Deuteronomy that I don't quite understand. I read the passage but I'm still confused to what this means. Can you guys help?

 

King James Version - Deuteronomy 22:11 - 11Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms