• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Does the Bible Contradict Itself ?

nPeace

Veteran Member
Sloppy work in a book he doesn't care about.


How do you know?



"not always SEEM to agree"? If you read your Bible you'll see they sometimes outright DON'T agree.


And just where is this written down?


Okay!, Okay! My turn to cherry pick the Bible. :D

Q. Does the Bible Contradict Itself ?
A. It Shore Does.



How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?
22. 2 Kings 8:26 26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.
42. 2 Chronicles 22:2 Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

Who was the father of Shelah/Sala?
Cainan. Luke 3:35-36 . . . which was the son of Sala, 36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad,
Arpachshad. Genesis II: 12 When Arpachshad was thirty-five years old, he begot Shelah

Jesus came into Jerusalem with how many animals?
One - a colt. Mark 11:7 Luke 19:3 5. And they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their garments on it; and he sat upon it.
Two - a colt and an ***. Matthew 21:7. They brought the *** and the colt and put their garments on them and he sat thereon.​


Who killed Goliath?
David. I Samuel 17: 50 50 So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine,....
Elhanan. 2 Samuel 21:19 19 . . . There was another battle with the Philistines, in Gob, and Elhanan, son of Jair from Bethlehem, killed Goliath of Gath​

.
You just showed me something new here.

1
I believe, but I am not sure (I will research it), perhaps different manuscripts may have been used by translators, and one or more of those manuscripts may have contained a writing error in the age.
Various translations differ here. Some say 22. Some say 42.
The obvious correction is 22.

2
The name Cainan appears in genealogical lists in present copies of the Greek Septuagint, such as the Alexandrine Manuscript of the fifth century C.E. (Ge 10:24; 11:12, 13; 1Ch 1:18 but not 1Ch 1:24), although it is not found in extant Hebrew manuscripts of the Hebrew Scriptures. The name Cainan is also missing at Luke 3:36 in two Bible manuscripts (Papyrus Bodmer 14, 15, of c. 200 C.E.; Codex Bezae, of the fifth century C.E.). This omission is in harmony with the Masoretic text at Genesis 10:24; 11:12, 15; and 1 Chronicles 1:18, according to which Shelah, not Cainan, is the son of Arpachshad.

Most scholars take this to be a copyist’s error. In the Hebrew Scriptures, “Cainan” is not found in this relative position in the genealogical listings in the Hebrew or the Samaritan texts, nor is it in any of the Targums or versions except the Greek Septuagint. And it does not seem that it was even in the earlier copies of the Septuagint, because Josephus, who usually follows the Septuagint, lists Seles (Shelah) next as the son of Arphaxades (Arpachshad). (Jewish Antiquities, I, 146 [vi, 4]) Early writers Irenaeus, Africanus, Eusebius, and Jerome rejected the second “Cainan” in copies of Luke’s account as an interpolation.

3
Were they not two animals, and Mathew gave more detail.
I didn't research it, What a small insignificant cherry to pick at.

4
Many scholars think that the original reading of 2 Samuel 21:19 corresponded to 1 Chronicles 20:5, the differences in the two texts having arisen through scribal error.

5
It's already admitted that there are some copying errors - small insignificant cherries. How does that affect the overwhelming evidence that it is authentic though - big juicy delicious cherries?
:)
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
You just showed me something new here.

1
I believe, but I am not sure (I will research it), perhaps different manuscripts may have been used by translators, and one or more of those manuscripts may have contained a writing error in the age.
Various translations differ here. Some say 22. Some say 42.
The obvious correction is 22.

2
The name Cainan appears in genealogical lists in present copies of the Greek Septuagint, such as the Alexandrine Manuscript of the fifth century C.E. (Ge 10:24; 11:12, 13; 1Ch 1:18 but not 1Ch 1:24), although it is not found in extant Hebrew manuscripts of the Hebrew Scriptures. The name Cainan is also missing at Luke 3:36 in two Bible manuscripts (Papyrus Bodmer 14, 15, of c. 200 C.E.; Codex Bezae, of the fifth century C.E.). This omission is in harmony with the Masoretic text at Genesis 10:24; 11:12, 15; and 1 Chronicles 1:18, according to which Shelah, not Cainan, is the son of Arpachshad.

Most scholars take this to be a copyist’s error. In the Hebrew Scriptures, “Cainan” is not found in this relative position in the genealogical listings in the Hebrew or the Samaritan texts, nor is it in any of the Targums or versions except the Greek Septuagint. And it does not seem that it was even in the earlier copies of the Septuagint, because Josephus, who usually follows the Septuagint, lists Seles (Shelah) next as the son of Arphaxades (Arpachshad). (Jewish Antiquities, I, 146 [vi, 4]) Early writers Irenaeus, Africanus, Eusebius, and Jerome rejected the second “Cainan” in copies of Luke’s account as an interpolation.

3
Were they not two animals, and Mathew gave more detail.
I didn't research it, What a small insignificant cherry to pick at.

4
Many scholars think that the original reading of 2 Samuel 21:19 corresponded to 1 Chronicles 20:5, the differences in the two texts having arisen through scribal error.

5
It's already admitted that there are some copying errors - small insignificant cherries. How does that affect the overwhelming evidence that it is authentic though - big juicy delicious cherries?
:)
At least you own up to some of the errors, and yes most of them are rather insignificant. But what evidence is there that it is authentic? I am betting by the same standards Spiderman is authentic.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
At least you own up to some of the errors, and yes most of them are rather insignificant. But what evidence is there that it is authentic? I am betting by the same standards Spiderman is authentic.
We always did admit that they were copyist errors. You didn't go to the space station at any time did you?
The Bible is seen to be authentic from various evidences.
Historical
Harmony and accuracy
Prophetically
Scientifically
Practically

Hey look! Spiderman!
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
We always did admit that they were copyist errors. You didn't go to the space station at any time did you?
The Bible is seen to be authentic from various evidences.
Historical
Harmony and accuracy
Prophetically
Scientifically
Practically

Hey look! Spiderman!

Actually, not scientifically and historically, and harmony, accuracy, Prophetically and practically is for the subjective view of believers perspective only.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
In all caps no less. Hmmmm. Must be a HUGE fact. In any case, let's take a look at the books of Matthew and John, but first keep in mind the definition of your word "discrepancy"

discrepancy noun
uk /dɪˈskrep.ən.si/ us /dɪˈskrep.ən.si/ formal
difference between two things that should be the same

Okaaay . . . . take a look at what each book has to say about the rolling stone incident.

Matthew 28:1-2, 5
1The day after the Sabbath day was the first day of the week. That day at dawn Mary Magdalene and the other woman named Mary went to look at the tomb. 2 Suddenly an angel of the Lord came from the sky, and there was a huge earthquake. The angel went to the tomb and rolled the stone away from the entrance. Then he sat on top of the stone.
5 The angel said to the women, “Don’t be afraid. I know you are looking for Jesus, the one who was killed on the cross.

John 20:1
Early on Sunday morning, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb. She saw that the large stone was moved away from the entrance.

20 Point Test Question: When the women came to the tomb was the stone already rolled away or not?



Considering the discrepancy between Matthew and John, obviously they can't. :D


Curious, just how does purposely putting contradictions in the Bible put off the all-wise, all-knowing, know-it-all cynics?

.
More piny cherries?
If I spent the amount of time you guys go through the Bible looking for faults, I'd be a spiritual Goliath.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
shunyadragon,
It seems that people who do not want to acknowledge that God has the right to expect all people to obey Him, look for anything to try to prove the Bible wrong. They say, since it is wrong here, it is probably wrong in this place that requires me to do something.
There is no one on earth that can rightly be called a Christian, who questions the Holy Scriptures.
It has been found to be true that no human being can translate the Bible without making a mistake. Any mistakes that have been made over the years, by many translators and copyists are easily found by comparing one Bible with another. Each Bible will have mistakes, but not the same mistakes, so it is very easy to see which is accurate, by comparison. If one Bible says something and ten say something different, the ten would, very likely, be right. I have about 50 English Bibles that I compare, and I find there are no real errors in God’s word. The problem is not with the Bible, but with people who reason, really Dope Out answers, instead of searching the Bible for answers, Genesis 40:8, Proverbs 2:1-12, Matthew 6:8.
Anyone who questions the truth of the Bible, is questioning The Almighty God, Who has promised to keep His word true, from every generation, Psalms 12:6,7.
Almost all the things that people say are wrong, are just a lack of understanding all of the Scriptures. The Bible tells ONE story, so if something does not agree, look it up in other Bibles or Bible Dictionaries, or Encyclopedias. Do not make statements about the Bible being inaccurate, because in The Original Autographs, there were NO errors. Keep searching and if you are truely sincere and pray to God, He will help you to understand.
It is nothing but a cop out to blame your lack of understanding on the Bible!!! The only place to find real truth is in the Holy Scriptures! I consider myself to be a Biblist, or Biblicist, which means I form all my understanding of Doctrine from the Bible, I believe everyone should, and not listen to what someone says the Bible says!!!
Yes they compared manuscripts for which there are many. in order to determine errors, and today it is possible to use Bible transfusions in the same way.
If we really want to study seriously, having a number of Bible transfusions is handy.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
We always did admit that they were copyist errors. You didn't go to the space station at any time did you?

I don't know who "we" is but there are many that do not admit even that.

The Bible is seen to be authentic from various evidences.
Historical

You fail automatically when you refer to your own refuted posts. The problem is that the Bible is not historically accurate. Genesis and Exodus are myth and later books may have found cities with the same names, but that is about it for the earliest part of the Bible. By those standards Spiderman is historically accurate.


Again you fail by linking your own refuted source. Why not try to do better next time? See if you can find a valid source, that excludes apologetics sources, that supports you.


And we are three for three, worse yet you immediately fail by referring to one of the worse failed prophecies in the entire Bible. Tyre was to be wiped clean, never to be inhabited again. You should tell that to the people that live there.

Scientifically
ROFL! Scientifically the Bible fails abysmally. There was no Adam and Eve, no tower of Babel, no flood of Noah. Having livestock mate in front of striped sticks does not affect the color of offspring. The Bible only describes the Earth as being flat, fixed in space, and the center of the universe. Have you even read the book?

Practically

Hey look! Spiderman!

Practically? In what way? And yes, you at least owned up to your Spiderman errror. Why even post historically knowing how badly you failed?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Okay. So could you point out the inaccuracies in this post please.

The Genesis account of Creation does not remotely fit the science, nor the time line in Genesis.

Noah's Arc and the world flood are historically impossible.

The numbers of Jews and the description described to take place in the exodus do not remotely fit the historical evidence.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
I don't know who "we" is but there are many that do not admit even that.



You fail automatically when you refer to your own refuted posts. The problem is that the Bible is not historically accurate. Genesis and Exodus are myth and later books may have found cities with the same names, but that is about it for the earliest part of the Bible. By those standards Spiderman is historically accurate.



Again you fail by linking your own refuted source. Why not try to do better next time? See if you can find a valid source, that excludes apologetics sources, that supports you.



And we are three for three, worse yet you immediately fail by referring to one of the worse failed prophecies in the entire Bible. Tyre was to be wiped clean, never to be inhabited again. You should tell that to the people that live there.


ROFL! Scientifically the Bible fails abysmally. There was no Adam and Eve, no tower of Babel, no flood of Noah. Having livestock mate in front of striped sticks does not affect the color of offspring. The Bible only describes the Earth as being flat, fixed in space, and the center of the universe. Have you even read the book?



Practically? In what way? And yes, you at least owned up to your Spiderman errror. Why even post historically knowing how badly you failed?
Some dogs just have no bite. They are all bark.
I hate to hear them. Especially at night. Groan.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Some dogs just have no bite. They are all bark.
I hate to hear them. Especially at night. Groan.
Once again you described yourself. Last time you supposedly wanted to learn you ended up running away since you could not even ask questions properly. Would you care to try again?

How about the Noah's Ark myth? That one is much easier to understand than evolution. In fact historically we knew that the Earth was hundreds of millions of years old at least long before Darwin and the Beagle.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Look how your ego just made you insult so many well educated scientists, physicians, lawyers, etc. Shame.
There are no well meaning scientists that believe the ark myth. Only extremely self delusion ones or dishonest ones believe that. I don't mind insulting lawyers, though I doubt very many believe that myth either.
 
Top