Does the Bible Contradict Itself ?

[nPeace]

Evidently then the good Christian is suppose to serious study everything in the Bible, every word, to make sure they're translating it accurately. That they would know better than all the scholars who have spent their lives studying the scriptures exactly what each passage is supposed to mean. Such scholars having felt it fitting to include the many contradictions within the Bible. Kind of stupid don't you think.

There are many translators, and translations.
Which scholars are you talking about? Name one.

Because it's IMMATERIAL to the issue. Sheesh!

The issue dear nPeace is quite simple: The Bible contains contradictions. Period. 42 ≠ 22. And no amount of tap dancing is going to change that.

.
.

Which Bible are you talking about? Name one.

 

[user4578]

42 ≠ 22

22 + 12 + 8 = 42

 

[PruePhillip]

That may be because much of the New Testament was written to look that way. Bart Ehrman, a biblical scholar wrote quite the book on that:

Forged (book) - Wikipedia

As I see it - if you believe you read the bible or bible friendly authors.
If you don't believe you read bible-unfriendly authors.
I wouldn't recommend reading Dawkins style books without first fully reading and understanding the bible and what it seeks to convey.
The bible is NOT a "forged book"

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I see it - if you believe you read the bible or bible friendly authors.
If you don't believe you read bible-unfriendly authors.
I wouldn't recommend reading Dawkins style books without first fully reading and understanding the bible and what it seeks to convey.
The bible is NOT a "forged book"

Parts of it are clearly forged as demonstrated by the errors in it. Would you like to go over some of the errors of the nativity?

 

[nPeace]

Parts of it are clearly forged as demonstrated by the errors in it. Would you like to go over some of the errors of the nativity?

Haven't you been doing that with @PruePhillip?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Haven't you been doing that with @PruePhillip?

Not specific errors yet.

 

[PruePhillip]

Parts of it are clearly forged as demonstrated by the errors in it. Would you like to go over some of the errors of the nativity?

So the differing accounts of Polybius and Pliny about Hannibal prove that Hannibal didn't exist?
Do the wildly varying accounts of Napoleon by the French and British demonstrate that the story of Napoleon was a forgery?
That's why we have different accounts for the Gospels, for instance. Think about it.

 

[nPeace]

Not specific errors yet.

What are you waiting for? Me?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So the differing accounts of Polybius and Pliny about Hannibal prove that Hannibal didn't exist?
Do the wildly varying accounts of Napoleon by the French and British demonstrate that the story of Napoleon was a forgery?
That's why we have different accounts for the Gospels, for instance. Think about it.

Who said anything about proving Jesus did not exist?

And I know why there are different accounts. I don't think that you do. By the way , what is the title of this thread?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What are you waiting for? Me?

I am waiting for an honest discussion by anyone.

 

[nPeace]

I am waiting for an honest discussion by anyone.

Well don't just wait then, continue.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well don't just wait then, continue.

Re you aware of the problems with Luke's nativity story.

 

[nPeace]

Re you aware of the problems with Luke's nativity story.

Okay.
First of all, if you want to have a discussion with me, please state what your argument is, and I will respond. In other words, give me the meat of the argument, rather than hold it back.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay.
First of all, if you want to have a discussion with me, please state what your argument is, and I will respond. In other words, give me the meat of the argument, rather than hold it back.

Fine, the narrative in Luke has errors and contradictions. First the time is set. In Luke one we see that it is the time of Herod, and Mary is already a young woman. Agreed?

 

[nPeace]

Fine, the narrative in Luke has errors and contradictions. First the time is set. In Luke one we see that it is the time of Herod, and Mary is already a young woman. Agreed?

Do you want me to go and read the Bible, and get back to you, and hope that your argument is in the post, when I do? Okay. I will do that.
Hopefully I will see your argument when I return.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you want me to go and read the Bible, and get back to you, and hope that your argument is in the post, when I do? Okay. I will do that.
Hopefully I will see your argument when I return.

I thought that you were familiar with the story. If not go ahead. I do not want to get ahead of myself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And of course if Luke is not good enough to confirm that we are talking about a time during Herod's reign we can cross reference with Matthew.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It seems to be taking a rather long time to check something that is rather obvious.

At any rate I will soldier on. Jesus was from Nazareth. That was where his parents lived. Luke needed an excuse to get Jesus born in Bethlehem. So he claimed that Rome declared that all the world needed to be taxed and so there was a census that required everyone to return to their ancestral homes. This fails for three reasons. At no time was there one universal census for the territories of Rome (please note I am ignoring the non-Roman part of the world). And no census required the ridiculous concept of people returning to their ancestral homes. Censuses taken for tax purposes counts people where. They live and earn money. It would make no sense to tax them where they came from a thousand years ago. And lastly, the only possible census occurred roughly ten years after the death of Herod putting Jesus's birth in Luke roughly ten years after his birth in Matthew.Matthew .

Luke even mentioned who did the census. The census he had to have been talking about was the census of Quirinius:


Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia

 

[PruePhillip]

It seems to be taking a rather long time to check something that is rather obvious.

At any rate I will soldier on. Jesus was from Nazareth. That was where his parents lived. Luke needed an excuse to get Jesus born in Bethlehem. So he claimed that Rome declared that all the world needed to be taxed and so there was a census that required everyone to return to their ancestral homes. This fails for three reasons. At no time was there one universal census for the territories of Rome (please note I am ignoring the non-Roman part of the world). And no census required the ridiculous concept of people returning to their ancestral homes. Censuses taken for tax purposes counts people where. They live and earn money. It would make no sense to tax them where they came from a thousand years ago. And lastly, the only possible census occurred roughly ten years after the death of Herod putting Jesus's birth in Luke roughly ten years after his birth in Matthew.Matthew .

Luke even mentioned who did the census. The census he had to have been talking about was the census of Quirinius:


Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia

Quote "Luke needed an excuse to get Jesus born in Bethlehem."
If it's all some "cunningly devised fable" then why not make this mythic person called Jesus a native born Bethlehemite to begin with?
Fact is, we don't know everything related to these events. I recall people once said that the town of Nazareth didn't exist, until someone found it.

 

[Skwim]

I recall people once said that the town of Nazareth didn't exist, until someone found it.

I'm in no position to argue the following point, but it does appear rather strong. (You would have to take a look at the linked site.)

Nazareth – The Town that Theology Built
The evidence for a 1st century town of Nazareth does not exist – not literary, not archaeological, and not historical. It is an imaginary city . . . .
source

.​