Does The Bible Contain Errors And Contradictions

[Quester]

What translation are you using?

I just grabbed that online. There's sites that show a list of verse comparisons.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A group of his woman followers found the empty tomb.

They saw 2 angels

So you think:

- the Gospel of John is wrong when it describes Mary Magdalene going to the tomb by herself,

- the Gospels of Matthew and Mark are wrong when they say that the group of women met only one person, and

- the Gospel of John is wrong when it says Mary Magdalene immediately ran back without meeting anyone.

Right?

 

[leroy]

So you think:

- the Gospel of John is wrong when it describes Mary Magdalene going to the tomb by herself,

John 20:1, “Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb.


It doesn't seem to me that John is claiming that marry went by "herself".....the text doest say that she went alone



If I tell you that Joe had lunch in McDonald's yesterday....... Am I saying that Joe went to McDonald's by himself? (Not necessarily)



John 20:2, “So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, ‘They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.


In this text John is implying that there where other people apart from marry (note the We) if marry would have been alone she would have said "I" not "we"


So it doesn't seem to be a contradiction to me.....mentioning one person doest necesarry implies that there was only one person.

The phrase
"Joe whent to McDonalds " doesn't becesary implies that he went by himself

"Joe saw his friend Ted at McDonalds " doesnt necesairly implies tha ted was the only person that joe saw, nor that there where no other people at McDonalds

"JOE talk to Ted" doesn't implies that Joe only talked to Ted during his lunch time

In other words
If person 1 claims "Joe whent to McDonalds",

And person 2 says
Joe whent to McDonalds with his wife, ......


nobody would call this a contradiction....we all understand that authors ted to omit details hay are considered irrelevant for the purpose of the story.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

God said He hides the truth from the proud and reveals it to the humble. He delights in putting the wise guys to shame by the foolish things of the world. He said, they will diligently seek but I will hide it form them ... God doesn't get upset when unbelievers reject His warning, as they will be severely punished for their disobedience He would only be upset if they escaped His justice, but that's not possible so all is well.

Your god has a perverse and malicious side to him, doesn't he? It looks like it delights in setting people up to fail and then watching them fail. Of course, that's what the Garden myth was about.

Truth and wisdom are not something one can learn about in a text book

Yes, I know. Both are acquired empirically - by living and experiencing life mindfully with a good mind and heart and abstracting and collecting principles that facilitate achieving goals while weeding out those that produce undesired results.

God said, "the things of God are foolishness to those who are perishing"

They are foolishness to those thriving without them, and actually, the worse one's situation, the more he'll find religion comforting. The less control he has over his world and the more threatening it is and insecure he feels, the more he'll turn to spirits and magical thinking for protection.

Everything God predicted in the Bible has either come to pass or is yet to happen

That's true for me as well. Every single thing I've predicted has happened or it hasn't yet.

so it is 100% accurate

I'm not sure that one can say that about either biblical prophecy or IANS prophecy, both of which have the same record of either always having transpired or not. It seems to strain the meaning of accurate.

Everyone one is created to worship, whether you believe it or not.

You're writing to somebody who doesn't have that gene. Of course, by worship, you probably include any form of respect or admiration.

We all either worship and serve God or the god of this world "Mammon".

Mammon, by which I assume you mean the things money buys and the money that buys them, serves ME. We'll be going out for a little Mammon in about an hour (Sunday morning breakfast), and we'll bring a little Mammon to pay for it. And my relationship to neither of these deserves to be called worship. My greatest devotion is to my wife followed by my dogs, but these also aren't worship. They're love, respect, and admiration.

Nobody can opt out of serving one of these two

Dylan went through a religious phase and wrote the song you're looking for:

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody
Well, it may be the Devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody

The word "Catholic" means universal, so when you add the word "Roman" to Universal, it becomes an oxymoron and a contradiction of terms.

The word has other meanings now. You're committing an equivocation fallacy by substituting an older definition where the newer one was intended. Use the intended definition and the oxymoron vanishes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The word "Catholic" means universal, so when you add the word "Roman" to Universal, it becomes an oxymoron and a contradiction of terms.

So what? They were still the much larger church of the two. They still believed that they were the one true church. A mistaken idea that many churches share. Your church sounds as if it is one of those churches too.

There has only ever been one Universal (Catholic) Church, and there always only will be one. But it has nothing to do with the Pagan Roman Religion which imposed itself on the Church and hijacked it and held it hostage until the Reformers came along in the early 1,500's and organized protest against Romanism.

Oh my, how are you going to prove that your belief is any better than theirs, One thing going for the Catholics. They do not call God a liar as your church seems to do. Remember, you call God a liar if you insist that Genesis is to be read literarly.

After a long and bloody battle against Romanism, the Church was liberated from Popery and the Vatican. Tens of millions died in the battle to liberate the Church from Pagan Roman Oppression. The Church has enjoyed liberty and expediential growth for the past 500 years. Romanism was domed to extinction and we can see it dying a slow and painful death

The Roman Catholic Church is still the number one Christian church in the world. If anything I see the extremists dying first.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The Bible has 66 books, the Roman Catholic Church had nothing to do with any of the books. They all existed long before the RCC came into existence. There are many different publishers but they can only publish the same 66 books. Nobody is allowed to mess with Gods Word, they all know that God promised to cast anyone who adds or takes away a single jot or tittle from the Bible, will be cast into the lake of fire

You could show me one that precedes the Catholic Church's Latan Vulgate. I doubt any written works of the Bible came from elsewhere.

 

[Sargonski]

Wow, you used a lot of words to say nothing. You cited no errors or contradictions, you just showed that you don't even know a single verse of the Bible you sought to discredit. That was a very lame impotent attempt, which only exposed your ignorance of the facts. I'm still waiting for some wise guy to find an error or contradiction

I cited a major contradiction thus a false accusation .. .. your claim that I don't know a single verse of the Bible relating to contradiction and error . a made up falsehood .. and ad hom fallacy

"exposed ignorance of the facts" --- another silly personal attack .. unable to address the content of my post with anything els .. a post taken from Scripture .. showing it is you who apparently lacks knowledge of verses.. and should perhaps be taking big log of own eye given you are unable to tell us even the name of the God you worship .. and you call others ignorant ? unable to identify the commands of your God from the Bible.

So what is it Charles .. who is your God .. and which is your God's command 1) Kill the Child for the sin of the Father or 2) Do not kill the child for the sin of the Father.

What part of .. if you claim both 1 and 2 you are in contradiction are you having trouble understanding ?

 

[danieldemol]

I just grabbed that online. There's sites that show a list of verse comparisons.

Great so which site did you use to compare which translations?

 

[Trailblazer]

Your god has a perverse and malicious side to him, doesn't he? It looks like it delights in setting people up to fail and then watching them fail.

His god does not exist. It is just a figment of his imagination, a god he created by reading and misinterpreting the Bible.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Your god has a perverse and malicious side to him, doesn't he? It looks like it delights in setting people up to fail and then watching them fail. Of course, that's what the Garden myth was about.

Your post reminded me of what I wrote earlier in this thread, as well as another one similar to the topic at hand. I'd like to repost what I wrote.

Regarding the biblical God's perverse and malicious side:

The biblical God is portrayed as a loving heavenly father, but I think that he is far worse than an abusive parent. Speaking as a former Christian, I think that he is the perfect example of a narcissistic and abusive father who only expresses his warped sense of love to his children whenever they do or say precisely what he wants them to do or say. And his children think that if they don't make him angry, he won't hurt them, but they are unsure because he has a violent temper and is known to lash out when he is angry. So if they disobey him and upset him, then there will be punishment and hell for them to pay. It isn't a healthy relationship founded on unconditional love, trust, and respect, but rather on constant fear and mistrust. It's an abusive and toxic relationship that must be confronted, and those trapped within must be rescued from it. I freed myself, and I've assisted others to free themselves from their belief in God.

Regarding the myth of the Garden of Eden and God intentionally setting up people to fail:

Speaking from the perspective of the OP's religion and the Bible.

Let me begin by stating that according to the Bible, God is infinite power (Psalm 147:5; Job 42:2; Daniel 2:21), infinite knowledge (Psalm 139:1–6; Isaiah 46:9–10; 1 John 3:20), and is present everywhere simultaneously (Psalm 139:7–10; Isaiah 40:12; Colossians 1:17). Having established what the Bible claims about God's omni-attributes, I will continue with my viewpoint. In my opinion, God committed the first sin because he created Adam and Eve with the foreknowledge that they would disobey him after he used the serpent to deliberately tempt them with a forbidden fruit. According to the creation story, he not only punished them for their disobedience (which he knew would happen), but he also punished the serpent for doing what he knew it would do; he punished and unjustly cursed the rest of humanity with a sinful nature for the sin of Adam and Eve; and he devised a sinister plan to brutally kill his own son by torturing him and crucifiying him in order to correct his original sin of creating humanity with the foreknowledge that they would become corrupt.

If God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and ever-present, as the Bible claims, then surely he would know better than to create Adam and Eve (and the rest of humanity), knowing that he would later regret creating humanity and repopulate the planet with the same morally flawed humans that he just annihilated in a global flood. According to Genesis 6:6, he regretted creating human beings as well as every animal, every creature that creeps on the ground, and the birds of the air. Thus, he carried out his plan to annihilate humanity in a global flood, with the exception of devout Noah and his family (Genesis 6:7-8).

In accordance with what the Bible states, it is my opinion that God was morally depraved (sinful, evil, sadistic) to first create Adam and Eve knowing that they would disobey him and that he would punish them for their disobedience; second, he punished and cursed Satan (the serpent), despite using Satan to carry out his nefarious plan to tempt Adam and Eve into disobeying him; third, punish and curse the rest of humanity with a sinful nature because of Adam and Eve's disobedience against him, despite the fact that the rest of humanity had nothing to do with it; and finally, he brutally tortured and killed his own son to "redeem" humanity for behaving exactly the way he knew they would behave before he created Adam and Eve. I think that is truly evil (Isaiah 45:7).

 

[Quester]

Great so which site did you use to compare which translations?

I didn't ... the translations are all within acceptable parameters. You can go here for an example:

Matthew 24:14 - Compare Bible Verse Translations

Compare Bible translations of Matthew 24:14 using all available Bible versions and commentary. "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come"

www.biblestudytools.com

 

[McBell]

His god does not exist.

Based on what, exactly?

It is just a figment of his imagination,

Based on what, exactly?

a god he created by reading and misinterpreting the Bible.

Their claim is that their god directly gave them the proper interpretation.
That said interpretation is different than your interpretation does not make their interpretation wrong, only different.

Unless of course you are able to prove your interpretation is the one and only true interpretation...

 

[Trailblazer]

Based on what, exactly?

Based on what, exactly?

Maybe a better question is " What is his conception of God based upon?
Why should everyone believe in God as revealed in the Bible?

The Bible is an antiquated book written my multiple authors. Why should I believe that these authors were actually inspired by God?
Why should anyone believe that? Where is the proof?

Their claim is that their god directly gave them the proper interpretation.

Why would anyone believe such a claim? All Christians claim that yet their interpretations differ so how could God have given all of them the proper interpretation?

I do not believe that God GIVES anyone an interpretation, I believe that everyone reads and interprets the Bible themselves.

That said interpretation is different than your interpretation does not make their interpretation wrong, only different.

No, it does not make their interpretation wrong, nor does it make their interpretation right.

Unless of course you are able to prove your interpretation is the one and only true interpretation...

According to my beliefs, there is no such thing as the 'one and only' true interpretation since more than one interpretation can be correct.

“Know assuredly that just as thou firmly believest that the Word of God, exalted be His glory, endureth for ever, thou must, likewise, believe with undoubting faith that its meaning can never be exhausted. They who are its appointed interpreters, they whose hearts are the repositories of its secrets, are, however, the only ones who can comprehend its manifold wisdom. Whoso, while reading the Sacred Scriptures, is tempted to choose therefrom whatever may suit him with which to challenge the authority of the Representative of God among men, is, indeed, as one dead, though to outward seeming he may walk and converse with his neighbors, and share with them their food and their drink.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 175-176

I am not certain if Baha’u’llah was referring to the Bible as the Word of God. I think so, but whether or not the Bible is actually the Word of God is a different subject.

What Baha’u’llah was saying in that passage is that scriptures can have many different meanings, but the Representative of God and His appointed interpreters are the only ones who have the authority to interpret the scriptures, so they are the final authorities on the meaning, and whatever meaning they assign should not be questioned.

I believe that the Representative of God for this age was Baha'u'llah so I go by what He wrote.
Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi were Baha'u'llah's appointed interpreters so I also go by what they wrote or said.

They did not interpret that many Bible verses but I weigh my interpretations of the Bible by the Revelation of Baha'u'llah in its entirety.
That includes what Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi revealed about God. I am going to take what thye said about God over what the Bible says because I am a Baha'i, not a Christian.

 

[McBell]

Maybe a better question is " What is his conception of God based upon?
Why should everyone believe in God as revealed in the Bible?

Seems their concept of god is based upon god revealing directly to him what is up.
I mean, that is what they flat out claimed...

The Bible is an antiquated book written my multiple authors. Why should I believe that these authors were actually inspired by God?
Why should anyone believe that? Where is the proof?

Why indeed.
But then the person in question has already flat out stated why they do.
You have flat out stated they are wrong.
I asked what the basis is for your claim.
I mean, I already know the basis for the claim you claim is flat out wrong.

Why would anyone believe such a claim? All Christians claim that yet their interpretations differ so how could God have given all of them the proper interpretation?

I do not believe that God GIVES anyone an interpretation, I believe that everyone reads and interprets the Bible themselves.

No, it does not make their interpretation wrong, nor does it make their interpretation right.

According to my beliefs, there is no such thing as the 'one and only' true interpretation since more than one interpretation can be correct.

“Know assuredly that just as thou firmly believest that the Word of God, exalted be His glory, endureth for ever, thou must, likewise, believe with undoubting faith that its meaning can never be exhausted. They who are its appointed interpreters, they whose hearts are the repositories of its secrets, are, however, the only ones who can comprehend its manifold wisdom. Whoso, while reading the Sacred Scriptures, is tempted to choose therefrom whatever may suit him with which to challenge the authority of the Representative of God among men, is, indeed, as one dead, though to outward seeming he may walk and converse with his neighbors, and share with them their food and their drink.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 175-176

I am not certain if Baha’u’llah was referring to the Bible as the Word of God. I think so, but whether or not the Bible is actually the Word of God is a different subject.

What Baha’u’llah was saying in that passage is that the biblical scriptures can have many different, but the Representative of God and His appointed interpreters are the only ones who have the authority to interpret the scriptures, so they are the final authorities on the meaning and whatever meaning they assign should not be questioned.

I believe that the Representative of God for this age was Baha'u'llah so I go by what He wrote.
Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi were Baha'u'llah's appointed interpreters so I also go by what they wrote or said.

They did not interpret that many Bible verses but I weigh my interpretations of the Bible by the Revelation of Baha'u'llah in its entirety.
That includes what Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi revealed about God. I am going to take what thye said about God over what the Bible says because I am a Baha'i, not a Christian.

So the basis for your claim that their claims are wrong is simply that you believe differently?

You flat out claimed:

"His god does not exist." Post #149 ​

​

and the above sermon is all you got in support of your claim?
Even though you have spent years claiming that god can not proven or disproven?

 

[Charles Philips]

Yes, I've heard that a lot. So let me tell you what I think of a "god" that would favour some and prevent others from "understanding His Word," for which, by the way, they will be rewarded or punished -- deserving neither reward nor punishment, since the choice isn't theirs but God's.

And here it is: blecchh! All that "godliness" and zero clue about fairness and justice. You can keep him.

I do NOT misunderstand what happened between Lot and his daughters. You do. (And by the way, remember these are the same daughters Lot offered to the men of Sodom, to do with as they pleased. And it must not be forgotten that those same daughters were already engaged! (Gen 19:14))

The daughters were not in the least convinced that Sodom and Gomorrah was world-wide, nor is there any such suggestion in the Bible. In fact, Lot first fled to another town, Zoar, which was not destroyed. He only removed to the mountain because he was "afraid to stay in Zoar." (Gen 19:30), so they knew full-well that the destruction was local only to S&G. They were concerned only that Lot would have no male heirs to carry on his name (Gen 19:31).

So perhaps it's you from whom God withheld the ability to understand.

It's obvious you don't know the basics about God, if you did then you would admit that you deserve His wrath and punishment. The fact that God chose to save some for Himself, shows that He is a loving and merciful God. If God was fair according to your standards, He would have to cast everyone into hell, but thank God, He's not fair.

God doesn't want the whole of humanity to spend eternity in paradise with Him, so He chose to save certain people from hell. Those who He didn't chose to save are not going to be cast into hell because God caused them to sin and thus depriving them of salvation.

No, He simply left them t their own devices and the result is always the same, they sin because they inherited a sin nature from Adam. God only punishes them because they deserve it, but their sin belongs to them and they must pay the penalty.

Lot wasn't prostituting his daughters, when the mob of (Sodomites, those who commit thew deadly sin of anal penetration) raided his house and demanded to analy penetrate the Angels who were visiting Lot. He offered his daughters, to save the Angels from being analy raped.

Lot had four daughters, two were left behind and burnt to death. The other two did believe that they were the last of their kind, in spite of your opinion.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It's obvious you don't know the basics about God, if you did then you would admit that you deserve His wrath and punishment.

That is a judgement that you are not qualified to make. (Oh, unless of course you are God -- are you?) If you are not, how ****ing dare you tell me what I deserve?

Is it any wonder I despise some Christians as much as I do, when they think themselves righteous to make such claims? The Jesus of the Bible wouldn't know you at all -- see Matthew 25.

The fact that God chose to save some for Himself, shows that He is a loving and merciful God. If God was fair according to your standards, He would have to cast everyone into hell, but thank God, He's not fair.

That is the purist sophistry I think I have ever seen. The alternative to having to "cast everyone into hell" is having to save everyone -- something an omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity could do without even thinking about it.

God doesn't want the whole of humanity to spend eternity in paradise with Him, so He chose to save certain people from hell. Those who He didn't chose to save are not going to be cast into hell because God caused them to sin and thus depriving them of salvation.

God doesn't want all of humanity with him? Then why the **** do you think he created them?

No, He simply left them t their own devices and the result is always the same, they sin because they inherited a sin nature from Adam. God only punishes them because they deserve it, but their sin belongs to them and they must pay the penalty.

Yeah, yeah...would work really well if there was an Adam I suppose.

Lot wasn't prostituting his daughters, when the mob of (Sodomites, those who commit thew deadly sin of anal penetration) raided his house and demanded to analy penetrate the Angels who were visiting Lot. He offered his daughters, to save the Angels from being analy raped.

I see -- and God's angels couldn't defend themselves? What, were they pathetic weaklings? What's the point of being an angel, then?

Lot had four daughters, two were left behind and burnt to death. The other two did believe that they were the last of their kind, in spite of your opinion.

My opinion is based on the text, and the text makes no such claim.

Anybody wonder why I don't think religious belief is always particularly intelligent?

 

[Charles Philips]

Your god has a perverse and malicious side to him, doesn't he? It looks like it delights in setting people up to fail and then watching them fail. Of course, that's what the Garden myth was about.

Yes, I know. Both are acquired empirically - by living and experiencing life mindfully with a good mind and heart and abstracting and collecting principles that facilitate achieving goals while weeding out those that produce undesired results.

They are foolishness to those thriving without them, and actually, the worse one's situation, the more he'll find religion comforting. The less control he has over his world and the more threatening it is and insecure he feels, the more he'll turn to spirits and magical thinking for protection.

That's true for me as well. Every single thing I've predicted has happened or it hasn't yet.

I'm not sure that one can say that about either biblical prophecy or IANS prophecy, both of which have the same record of either always having transpired or not. It seems to strain the meaning of accurate.

You're writing to somebody who doesn't have that gene. Of course, by worship, you probably include any form of respect or admiration.

Mammon, by which I assume you mean the things money buys and the money that buys them, serves ME. We'll be going out for a little Mammon in about an hour (Sunday morning breakfast), and we'll bring a little Mammon to pay for it. And my relationship to neither of these deserves to be called worship. My greatest devotion is to my wife followed by my dogs, but these also aren't worship. They're love, respect, and admiration.

Dylan went through a religious phase and wrote the song you're looking for:

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody
Well, it may be the Devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody

The word has other meanings now. You're committing an equivocation fallacy by substituting an older definition where the newer one was intended. Use the intended definition and the oxymoron vanishes.

You obviously missed the elephant in the room, that being God doesn't punish anyone for nothing. He punishes them because they lived a life of sin, (which means the rejected God and served Mammon - Devil).

You worship and serve, whatever you hold in the highest esteem. Whether that be your wife or dogs or anything else. The Devil's only aim to to stop you from believing the Gospel, as He knows He loses people when they place their trust in the Lord rather than Mammon. Mammon is the vehicle which facilitates the feeding of lust, that's why approximately 98% chose Mammon as their god.

Bob Dylan declared that He sold his soul to the Devil. He said it on National TV, at least he's honest about who he worships. His master Mammon provides food to feed his lust but the trade off is that the Devil takes his soul.

You're not exempt from what God said about mankind, He said we are created to worship. you're not an autonomous creature who can deny what you are. The sad reality is, you rely on God for your next breath and for the next moment of life. He can take it off you at any given moment and you are utterly at His mercy.

You admit you'll never convince me to come onboard you ship, (which has no rudder or sails) so it tossed around the stormy sea. Our only difference is, you trust in your wisdom and ability and I trust in God.

 

[Charles Philips]

So what? They were still the much larger church of the two. They still believed that they were the one true church. A mistaken idea that many churches share. Your church sounds as if it is one of those churches too.


Oh my, how are you going to prove that your belief is any better than theirs, One thing going for the Catholics. They do not call God a liar as your church seems to do. Remember, you call God a liar if you insist that Genesis is to be read literarly.

The Roman Catholic Church is still the number one Christian church in the world. If anything I see the extremists dying first.

Your ignorance of the facts is bleeding obvious.

1. There's no such thing as "Churches", as there is only One Bride of Christ and Christ is not an adulterer to mess around with others. He is faithful to His Bride only.

I'm not interested in proving anything to anyone, the Bride of Christ was chosen by the Lord Himself. We don't sell Church membership like a consumer product, people can only join if God choses them so man has absolutely zero influence over Gods decisions.

My Church teaches that the RRC is Antichrist, we would never consider Roman Catholics to be Christian.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm not interested in proving anything to anyone, ...

^ or, for that matter, being honest ...

My Church teaches that the RRC is Antichrist, we would never consider Roman Catholics to be Christian.

^ I wonder what he thinks about Jews ...

 

[Charles Philips]

You could show me one that precedes the Catholic Church's Latan Vulgate. I doubt any written works of the Bible came from elsewhere.

Most of the original scrolls were destroyed, but many survived and were found only a few centuries ago. They perfectly match what was copied so there's no issue with authenticity.
The Holy Scriptures are God inspired Word, they don't belong to any organization. They have been translated into every language so nobody will every be able to destroy the Bible. It will reach every one of Gods Elect Saints