bible versions and contradictions

Tiberius · Apr 20, 2006

Fact and truth can be two different things. It is a fact that Washington did not chop down the cherry tree. But the story conveys an important truth about Washington -- his honest nature.

Maybe so, but George's nature has nothing to do with chopping the tree down or not. After all, if the tree thing never happened, he'd still be just as honest.

The only truth about the tree is this - did it happen or not? If it happened as the story says, then it is factual and truthful. if the story is not fact, then it can never be true.

What you have done is try to muddy the issue by speaking of the truth about two unrelated things.

I can hold a pen in my hand. If it is a fact I am holding the pen, then it is true I am holding the pen. If it is NOT fact I am holding a pen, then it can not be true that I AM holding a pen.

You can't have a fact which is untrue, nor can you have a truth that is not factual.

Jayhawker Soule · Apr 20, 2006

sojourner said:
Each faith community speaks truth in its own way, and through it's holy writings and traditions.

You're babbling. This is a debate forum, not a pulpit for baseless sermons.

sojourner · Apr 21, 2006

Jayhawker Soule said:
You're babbling. This is a debate forum, not a pulpit for baseless sermons.

What in the world are you talking about?!?

sojourner · Apr 21, 2006

Tiberius said:
Maybe so, but George's nature has nothing to do with chopping the tree down or not. After all, if the tree thing never happened, he'd still be just as honest.

The only truth about the tree is this - did it happen or not? If it happened as the story says, then it is factual and truthful. if the story is not fact, then it can never be true.

What you have done is try to muddy the issue by speaking of the truth about two unrelated things.

I can hold a pen in my hand. If it is a fact I am holding the pen, then it is true I am holding the pen. If it is NOT fact I am holding a pen, then it can not be true that I AM holding a pen.

You can't have a fact which is untrue, nor can you have a truth that is not factual.

You're mistaken.
The story of the cherry tree doesn't invent Washington's honesty...just as the Bible stories don't create God's nature. God would be just as God is without the Bible stories. BUT...the stories do speak about the nature of God and help to reveal that nature to us, just as the story of the cherry tree helps to reveal something of Washington's nature to us.

A story can reveal a truth, without the story being factual. You're confusing what it is about the story that is factual. The message of the story is what we're after here...not the elements of the story. Did Noah's Ark, as it appears in the Bible actually happen in history? Probably not. But, the story isn't about Noah, it's about God, and how God saves God's faithful people. The story does tell a truth about God, using myth. In that sense, the story is truthful, but not factual.

maty · Apr 21, 2006

Some contradictions in the bible

Who was the father of Joseph, husband of Mary?

Jacob (Matthew 1:16)
Hell (Luke 3:23)

Jesus descended from which son of David?

Solomon (Matthew 1:6)
Nathan(Luke3:31)

Who was the father of Shealtiel?

Jechoniah (Matthew 1:12)
Neri (Luke 3:27)

Which son of Zerubbabel was an ancestor of Jesus Christ?

Abiud (Matthew 1: 13)
Rhesa (Luke 3:27) But the seven sons of Zerubbabel are as follows: i.Meshullam, ii. Hananiah, iii. Hashubah, iv. Ohel, v.Berechiah, vi. Hasadiah, viii. Jushabhesed (I Chronicles 3:19, 20). The names Abiud and Rhesa do not fit in anyway.

Who was the father of Uzziah?

Joram (Matthew 1:8)
Amaziah (2 Chronicles 26:1)

Who was the father of Jechoniah?

Josiah (Matthew 1:11)
Jeholakim (I Chronicles 3:16)

How many generations were there from the Babylonian exile until Christ?

Matthew says fourteen (Matthew 1:17)
But a careful count of the generations reveals only thirteen (see Matthew 1: 12-16)

Who was the father of Shelah?

Cainan (Luke 3:35-36)
Arphaxad (Genesis II: 12)

Was John the Baptist Elijah who was to come?

Yes (Matthew II: 14, 17:10-13)
No (John 1:19-21)

Would Jesus inherit Davids throne?

Yes. So said the angel (Luke 1:32)
No, since he is a descendant of Jehoiakim (see Matthew 1: I 1, I Chronicles 3:16). And Jehoiakim was cursed by God so that none of his descendants can sit upon Davids throne (Jeremiah 36:30)

Jesus rode into Jerusalem on how many animals?

One - a colt (Mark 11:7; cf 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.

How did Simon Peter find out that Jesus was the Christ?

By a revelation from heaven (Matthew 16:17)
His brother Andrew told him (John 1:41)

maty · Apr 21, 2006

Here are some of the bible's contradictions:

Who was the father of Joseph, husband of Mary?

Jacob (Matthew 1:16)
Hell (Luke 3:23)

Jesus descended from which son of David?

Solomon (Matthew 1:6)
Nathan(Luke3:31)

Who was the father of Shealtiel?

Jechoniah (Matthew 1:12)
Neri (Luke 3:27)

Which son of Zerubbabel was an ancestor of Jesus Christ?

Abiud (Matthew 1: 13)
Rhesa (Luke 3:27) But the seven sons of Zerubbabel are as follows: i.Meshullam, ii. Hananiah, iii. Hashubah, iv. Ohel, v.Berechiah, vi. Hasadiah, viii. Jushabhesed (I Chronicles 3:19, 20). The names Abiud and Rhesa do not fit in anyway.

Who was the father of Uzziah?

Joram (Matthew 1:8)
Amaziah (2 Chronicles 26:1)

Who was the father of Jechoniah?

Josiah (Matthew 1:11)
Jeholakim (I Chronicles 3:16)

How many generations were there from the Babylonian exile until Christ?

Matthew says fourteen (Matthew 1:17)
But a careful count of the generations reveals only thirteen (see Matthew 1: 12-16)

Who was the father of Shelah?

Cainan (Luke 3:35-36)
Arphaxad (Genesis II: 12)

Was John the Baptist Elijah who was to come?

Yes (Matthew II: 14, 17:10-13)
No (John 1:19-21)

Would Jesus inherit Davids throne?

Yes. So said the angel (Luke 1:32)
No, since he is a descendant of Jehoiakim (see Matthew 1: I 1, I Chronicles 3:16). And Jehoiakim was cursed by God so that none of his descendants can sit upon Davids throne (Jeremiah 36:30)

Jesus rode into Jerusalem on how many animals?

One - a colt (Mark 11:7; cf 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.

How did Simon Peter find out that Jesus was the Christ?

By a revelation from heaven (Matthew 16:17)
His brother Andrew told him (John 1:41)

Scuba Pete · Apr 21, 2006

First... the scriptures never claim to be perfect. Second, many of the so-called contradicitons are like this:

maty said:
How did Simon Peter find out that Jesus was the Christ?

By a revelation from heaven (Matthew 16:17)

His brother Andrew told him (John 1:41)

Sure Andrew told Peter Jesus was the Christ... but how often do we believe our siblings? Peter's realization of Jesus being the Christ had NOTHING to do with Andrew's belief and was indeed revealed to him.

Quite often it is the narrow mindedness of the scoffer that CREATES an inconsistency where none was. Again, not that the scriptures claim to be inerrant: they don't. They were written by men and not by God.

sojourner · Apr 21, 2006

maty said:
Here are some of the bible's contradictions:

Who was the father of Joseph, husband of Mary?

Jacob (Matthew 1:16)

Hell (Luke 3:23)

Jesus descended from which son of David?

Solomon (Matthew 1:6)

Nathan(Luke3:31)

Who was the father of Shealtiel?

Jechoniah (Matthew 1:12)

Neri (Luke 3:27)

Which son of Zerubbabel was an ancestor of Jesus Christ?

Abiud (Matthew 1: 13)

Rhesa (Luke 3:27) But the seven sons of Zerubbabel are as follows: i.Meshullam, ii. Hananiah, iii. Hashubah, iv. Ohel, v.Berechiah, vi. Hasadiah, viii. Jushabhesed (I Chronicles 3:19, 20). The names Abiud and Rhesa do not fit in anyway.

Who was the father of Uzziah?

Joram (Matthew 1:8)

Amaziah (2 Chronicles 26:1)

Who was the father of Jechoniah?

Josiah (Matthew 1:11)

Jeholakim (I Chronicles 3:16)

How many generations were there from the Babylonian exile until Christ?

Matthew says fourteen (Matthew 1:17)

But a careful count of the generations reveals only thirteen (see Matthew 1: 12-16)

Who was the father of Shelah?

Cainan (Luke 3:35-36)

Arphaxad (Genesis II: 12)

Was John the Baptist Elijah who was to come?

Yes (Matthew II: 14, 17:10-13)

No (John 1:19-21)

Would Jesus inherit Davids throne?

Yes. So said the angel (Luke 1:32)

No, since he is a descendant of Jehoiakim (see Matthew 1: I 1, I Chronicles 3:16). And Jehoiakim was cursed by God so that none of his descendants can sit upon Davids throne (Jeremiah 36:30)

Jesus rode into Jerusalem on how many animals?

One - a colt (Mark 11:7; cf 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.

How did Simon Peter find out that Jesus was the Christ?

By a revelation from heaven (Matthew 16:17)

His brother Andrew told him (John 1:41)

None of them are important in the grand scheme of things. They are differences, evidenced by different writers and differing points of view. None of them contradict the nature of God, or God's intent for humanity. Their existence does not "disprove" the veracity of the scriptures, but rather shows how disparate writings can and do come very close to saying the same things.

Jerrell · Apr 21, 2006

I have a Picture to Explain this.

But there are Two Diffrent Collections of Manuscripts

Those from Antioch

Those from Alexandria

Those from Antioch were Copied again and again over History, this is the excuse for not using them in modern translation. However Every single Translation has been Preserved. From these Manuscripes The King James Version was written, So was the Latin Vulgate, and the Geneva Version, Every Non MOdern Version came from These Manuscripts.

However The Manuscripes in Alexandria, did not decade, therefore they are the oldest manuscripts from the BIble. These are the documents used to Translate ALl modern Versions. But who made these Manuscrpts? There were some Early Christian People in Alexandria who were Gnostic, they thought like many christians do today. They denied the Trinty, they didn't believe Jesus was the Son of God...guess who the Writers of these Ancient Manuscripts were....Those people!

Stick to the true Word of God, THe King James Version, you can Use the NIV and others for guidance but dont rely on them, There are literally vereses Missin, they put the number but no words....some veres make no sense...they use "new" words that nobody knws...is this a better version?

sojourner · Apr 21, 2006

Jerrell said:
I have a Picture to Explain this.

But there are Two Diffrent Collections of Manuscripts

Those from Antioch

Those from Alexandria

Those from Antioch were Copied again and again over History, this is the excuse for not using them in modern translation. However Every single Translation has been Preserved. From these Manuscripes The King James Version was written, So was the Latin Vulgate, and the Geneva Version, Every Non MOdern Version came from These Manuscripts.

However The Manuscripes in Alexandria, did not decade, therefore they are the oldest manuscripts from the BIble. These are the documents used to Translate ALl modern Versions. But who made these Manuscrpts? There were some Early Christian People in Alexandria who were Gnostic, they thought like many christians do today. They denied the Trinty, they didn't believe Jesus was the Son of God...guess who the Writers of these Ancient Manuscripts were....Those people!

Stick to the true Word of God, THe King James Version, you can Use the NIV and others for guidance but dont rely on them, There are literally vereses Missin, they put the number but no words....some veres make no sense...they use "new" words that nobody knws...is this a better version?

That's quite simplistic and scholastically indefensible. And it doesn't account for the differences laid out in the earlier post.

Tiberius · Apr 21, 2006

sojourner said:
A story can reveal a truth, without the story being factual. You're confusing what it is about the story that is factual. The message of the story is what we're after here...not the elements of the story. Did Noah's Ark, as it appears in the Bible actually happen in history? Probably not. But, the story isn't about Noah, it's about God, and how God saves God's faithful people. The story does tell a truth about God, using myth. In that sense, the story is truthful, but not factual.

So the facts about the story of Noah can be completely made up?

Maybe there never was a guy called Noah, maybe there never was a world wide flood, or the ark or the animals entering two by two?

But the important thing is that the story tells us that people who are just and righteous are saved by God.

So, we can conclude that not everything we read in the Bible is true.

How then do we know that the parts of the Bible that tell us God exists are true? Are the stories tested? or do we have to rely on gut feeling? "I know that the parts about God existing are true because I really really feel it." That's really all there is, right?

Nice way to get around the contradiction problem though. By saying that the elements of the story aren't what's important, but the morals of the story.

but what if it's the morals themselves that are in contradiction? What if there is a story in the Bible that says that doing a particular thing is okay, but then another story says that doing that same thing is not okay?

sojourner · Apr 22, 2006

Tiberius said:
So the facts about the story of Noah can be completely made up?

Maybe there never was a guy called Noah, maybe there never was a world wide flood, or the ark or the animals entering two by two?

But the important thing is that the story tells us that people who are just and righteous are saved by God.

So, we can conclude that not everything we read in the Bible is true.

How then do we know that the parts of the Bible that tell us God exists are true? Are the stories tested? or do we have to rely on gut feeling? "I know that the parts about God existing are true because I really really feel it." That's really all there is, right?

Nice way to get around the contradiction problem though. By saying that the elements of the story aren't what's important, but the morals of the story.

but what if it's the morals themselves that are in contradiction? What if there is a story in the Bible that says that doing a particular thing is okay, but then another story says that doing that same thing is not okay?

Yes, and it's quite likely that they are!

That's correct.

The importance of the story is that it reveals the nature of God.

No. We can conclude that not everything in the Bible accords with empirical fact.

The Bible doesn't prove God. The Bible reveals God, as God is known to God's people.
God is revealed, because there is a consistency that is borne out between what the Bible says, and the experiences and actions of the faithful.

Remember that the Bible was written by human beings with differing perspectives. What may have been right and moral for one culture and time is not right for another culture and time. we have to maintain a perspective in reading the Bible that places God's love for God's people at the forefront of our interpretations, not our own social manners.

michel · Apr 22, 2006

sojourner said:
Yes, and it's quite likely that they are!

That's correct.

The importance of the story is that it reveals the nature of God.

No. We can conclude that not everything in the Bible accords with empirical fact.

The Bible doesn't prove God. The Bible reveals God, as God is known to God's people.
God is revealed, because there is a consistency that is borne out between what the Bible says, and the experiences and actions of the faithful.

Remember that the Bible was written by human beings with differing perspectives. What may have been right and moral for one culture and time is not right for another culture and time. we have to maintain a perspective in reading the Bible that places God's love for God's people at the forefront of our interpretations, not our own social manners.

Methinks this thread is a parallel to "Inspired what's up with that!"

sojourner · Apr 22, 2006

michel said:
Methinks this thread is a parallel to "Inspired what's up with that!"

You're just seeing double -- too much sacramental wine, perhaps...:biglaugh:

Tiberius · Apr 22, 2006

We can conclude that not everything in the Bible accords with empirical fact.

Okay.

So, it is an emperical fact that certain things (whatever they may be) happened a long time ago, yes?

If the things mentioned in the Bible are NOT those things, then the Bible is false. To claim otherwise is like saying that the events in the Harry Potter series may not be emperical fact, but they reveal the truth of Harry Potter to all who believe that he is real.

If the stories of Jesus are not emperical fact, then Jesus did not exist. That would mean that one of the cornerstones of Xian mythology is just plain wrong.

In the end, the only reason to believe the Bible is because it portrays facts. If it is a fact that God exists, then bel;ieve the Bible. if it is not a fact that God exists, then the Bible is just a story and we shouldn't believe it to be true anymore than Aesop's fables.

sojourner · Apr 22, 2006

Tiberius said:
Okay.

So, it is an emperical fact that certain things (whatever they may be) happened a long time ago, yes?

If the things mentioned in the Bible are NOT those things, then the Bible is false. To claim otherwise is like saying that the events in the Harry Potter series may not be emperical fact, but they reveal the truth of Harry Potter to all who believe that he is real.

If the stories of Jesus are not emperical fact, then Jesus did not exist. That would mean that one of the cornerstones of Xian mythology is just plain wrong.

In the end, the only reason to believe the Bible is because it portrays facts. If it is a fact that God exists, then bel;ieve the Bible. if it is not a fact that God exists, then the Bible is just a story and we shouldn't believe it to be true anymore than Aesop's fables.

You're assuming that mythological stories cannot speak to truth and cannot be revelatory. That's an incorrect assumption to make.

The Harry Potter stories are not factual stories, but they do reveal certain truths found within the human spirit -- things like friendship, valor, perseverence.

The stories of Jesus probably do contain some fact. In any case, your statement is like saying that, just because the cherry tree story isn't factual, then Washington didn't exist. The accounts of Jesus in the gospels are not the only accounts of Jesus that we have. Again, the inclusion of the gospel stories is not to "prove Jesus' existence," but to reveal something about Jesus.

If you're reading the Bible just for facts, then you're reading it for the wrong reason. The Bible was ot meant ot be a text book.

Tiberius · Apr 22, 2006

I think you are confusing moral truth with factual truth.

Harry Potter is morally true. Parts of the Bible are morally true as well.

But are they factually true?

If only some parts of the Bible are factually true, how do we figure out which parts are factually true and which parts are only morally true?

Until then, I don't plan on worshipping a God which may not be factually true. I want factual truth. Moral truth is fine, but it's still just a story.

Regarding your Washington analogy, it would be stupid to deny the existence of Washington when there are lots of other sources of evidence. The only evidence we have of Jesus, however, comes from texts that are thousands of years old. We have no way to figure out if these texts are morally true only, or if they are factually true.

sojourner · Apr 24, 2006

Tiberius said:
I think you are confusing moral truth with factual truth.

Harry Potter is morally true. Parts of the Bible are morally true as well.

But are they factually true?

If only some parts of the Bible are factually true, how do we figure out which parts are factually true and which parts are only morally true?

Until then, I don't plan on worshipping a God which may not be factually true. I want factual truth. Moral truth is fine, but it's still just a story.

Regarding your Washington analogy, it would be stupid to deny the existence of Washington when there are lots of other sources of evidence. The only evidence we have of Jesus, however, comes from texts that are thousands of years old. We have no way to figure out if these texts are morally true only, or if they are factually true.

Something occurred to me while reading your posts, especially this line, "Until then, I don't plan on worshiping a God which may not be factually true. I want factual truth."

One is compelled to wonder what exactly you would do if you were presented with empirical proof?

What if it was proven to you that God existed? Would you worship God then? What would you do with that information? Would you continue to ask pointless questions, like the infuriating child who continually asks the question, "Why?" after every answer he's given?

I haven't seen any evidence in your posts that you're actually seeking God. I have seen evidence that you're questioning the answers we've given in order to push your own agenda.

What would you do...?

Scuba Pete · Apr 24, 2006

Tiberius said:
Regarding your Washington analogy, it would be stupid to deny the existence of Washington when there are lots of other sources of evidence.

You say this... and yet, well let me paraphrase an earlier statement in the same post. The red emboldened words have been added by me...

Tiberius said:
If only some parts of History are factually true, how do we figure out which parts about Washington are factually true and which parts are only morally true?

I take it you disbelieve all of history because of this.

Tiberius · Apr 24, 2006

Not at all.

if there are many sources which have the same accounts, and these sources are not related to each other, than I will conclude that it is likely that the accounts are accurate.

However, if the accounts have significant differences and are related and I can't check many other sources for their accuracy, then I will be less likely to believe it.

For example...

I research a person named J. Smith...

Source one says Joe Smith was a mechanic
Source two says Joseph Smith was an autotechnician
Source three says Joey S.worked on cars
Source four says that Mr Smith was a greasemonkey
Source five says J. Smith worked in an autorepair shop

it's safe to conclude that there is someone by the name of Joseph Smith who fixes cars for a living, yes?

However, if...

Source one says Joe Smith was a mechanic
Source two says that Justin Smith worked as a flight attendant
Source three says that James Smith died as an infant

I'm hardly going to conclude that they were speaking about the same person, am I?

Yet, there are differneces similar to these in the Bible, and the most common result, it seems, is that people create elaborate excuses to avouid it.

Yes, James Smith was involved in a terrible accident when he was an infant and was clinically dead for three minutes, and afterwards his name was changed to Joe because his parents wanted to avoid the trauma of the memories of what happened to baby James. After joe left school, he got a job as a mechanic, but he found out about what his parents did, and he wanted to distance himself from the lie that his parents had told him. So he quit his mechanic job and got a job as a flight attendent and changed his name to Justin, because his parents told him his name had originally been Justin. (They really didn't want him to be known as James again, so they lied a second time about his name.) And I know it's true because my research clearly shows that James Smith was involved in a freak accident as a child, and that later, Joe Smith was a mechanic, and several years after, Justin Smith was a flight steward. Plus, I really feel it in my heart, so it's gotta be true, golly gee, it's just gotta!

You laugh when I do it with J. Smith, yet when people do it to the Bible, it's all of a sudden so plausible.

bible versions and contradictions

Well-Known Member

-- untitled --

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Member

Member

Le plongeur avec attitude...

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Active Member

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Well-Known Member

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Administrator Emeritus

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Well-Known Member

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Well-Known Member

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Le plongeur avec attitude...

Well-Known Member