• 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!

Biblical Contradictions

Me Myself

Me Myself

Back to my username
Jesus says only God is good, but God says that Job is good and even boasts to the devil about Job.

Other men in the bible are said to have been good.

So, are they good and Jesus was wrong? or are they God like jesus says in the scriptures that we all are and no one is wrong?
 
james2ko

james2ko

Well-Known Member
Vadergirl123 said:
So I read over Mark again a couple times, and Mark never actually says they're eating the passover. In fact he only talks about them preparing for it. At the passover the jews eat unleavened bread(the greek word is azumos) however the greek word used in Mark is artos, which just means bread/ or a loaf(I have a Hebrew dictionary at my house) there's no contradiction.
Click to expand...

Most Christians assume that because "azumos" does not appear in the accounts of the last supper that the Passover bread was leavened. The term "artos" does not exclude "azumos", but that in certain circumstances, e.g., in description of the Passover, it is inclusive of the term. Hence the occurrence of "artos"at the Last Supper is no proof that this was not really the Passover. By the time of the supper, all unleavened products had to be removed from any dwelling. This is the first clue to question whether the term "artos" was meant to describe "leavened" or regular bread.

In addition, both early Jewish writers Josephus and Philo use artos in their description of the matzo of the Passover meal. Further, the showbread in the Tabernacle and Temple is called artos in Hebrews 9:2. This is key because the showbread was unleavened. The showbread is mentioned in Exodus 29:2, 23 and is expressed by challah, which is Hebrew meaning "unleavened." These were unleavened loaves that are also referred to by the Greek artos in the New Testament. Even with this correction, there is still no contradiction.
 
F0uad

F0uad

Well-Known Member
james2ko said:
Most Christians assume that because "azumos" does not appear in the accounts of the last supper that the Passover bread was leavened. The term "artos" does not exclude "azumos", but that in certain circumstances, e.g., in description of the Passover, it is inclusive of the term. Hence the occurrence of "artos"at the Last Supper is no proof that this was not really the Passover. By the time of the supper, all unleavened products had to be removed from any dwelling. This is the first clue to question whether the term "artos" was meant to describe "leavened" or regular bread.

In addition, both early Jewish writers Josephus and Philo use artos in their description of the matzo of the Passover meal. Further, the showbread in the Tabernacle and Temple is called artos in Hebrews 9:2. This is key because the showbread was unleavened. The showbread is mentioned in Exodus 29:2, 23 and is expressed by challah, which is Hebrew meaning "unleavened." These were unleavened loaves that are also referred to by the Greek artos in the New Testament. Even with this correction, there is still no contradiction.
Click to expand...

Since you quoted Hebrews can you tell me actually who the author of that book is?
 
V

Vadergirl123

Active Member
Me Myself said:
Me? you are the one fixing the contradictions.
Click to expand...
Okay you don't have to look them up yourself. I need the pasages you're refering to. Please don't just tell me some "contradictions" without the references. You could also just read over the list and tell me the number you want me to do if you want an answer now.
 
V

Vadergirl123

Active Member
No. 23 Does God want some one to go to hell? In I Timothy 2:3-4 and II Peter 3:9 it says God wants people to be saved/come to repentance. Proverbs 16:4 is talking about how some people will go to hell. It's not syaing that God wants them too. John 12:40 also isn't saying that God wants people to go to hell. When the verse is read in its cotext you see that Jesus is explaining how God allows some people to not believe in him but to walk in darkness. II Thessalonians 2:11-12 talks about basically the same thing as John. The people were decieved because they didn't receive Gd's truth. Romans 9:18 has to be read in its context. Paul's making a reference to Pharaoh having a hard heart and God allowing him to. There's no contradiction
Looking Unto Jesus - Does God want some to go to hell? - Limestone Church of Christ, Kingston, Ontario, Standing for New Testament Christianity, Bible, faith, Bible study, word of God, Christianity, Christian, church, truth, atheism, answers, gospel,
 
V

Vadergirl123

Active Member
No. 24 Did Jesus tell his disciples everything? The verses that are believed to contradict are John 15:15 and John 16:12. In the context of John 15:15 Jesus is talking about how his disciples are his friends and not his servants, because he shares the things of his father with them( which is something you don't do with a servant).In the context of John 16:12 Jesus is talking about how there are things that the disciples can't yet understand because the holy spirit hasn't entered them yet. These verses don't contradict.
 
V

Vadergirl123

Active Member
No. 29 Who was Anah? In Genesis 36:2, 14 Anah is the daughter of a man named Zibeon the Hivite. In Genesis 36:20 and I Chronicles 1:38 Anah is said to be one of the sons of Seir. In Genesis 36:24 and 1 Chronicles 1:40 Anah is one of the sons of Zibeon. These verses don't contradict, they're talking about three different people.
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Does God want some one to go to hell? In I Timothy 2:3-4 and II Peter 3:9 it says God wants people to be saved/come to repentance.
Click to expand...
Then, if God is God, we are God's people, and God promises to save God's people, we must trust that, at some point, those people will be saved/come to repentance.
Proverbs 16:4 is talking about how some people will go to hell.
Click to expand...
No it isn't. The text doesn't mention that at all.
 
V

Vadergirl123

Active Member
No. 34 Where did Jesus first appear to the eleven disciples? In Mark, Luke, and John Jesus meets them in a room on the same day of his resurrection. In Matt. the disciples see Jesus on a mountain in Galilee. These verses don't contradict since Matt. doesn't give the exact time they saw him. In fact, Matt 28:16 says, "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them." There's no contradiction.
 
Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
Vadergirl123

I've watched as your thread has continued to grow, but took no real interest in it until now---there isn't much else going on at the moment. So I've gone to your first example of an invalid contradiction and taken a look at it.

First of all.

Vadergirl123 said:
No. 11 is the two contradictory creation accounts..
This "contradiction" is based on a translational error NOT a biblical one. In the original hebrew writings The verb for formed is in the pluperfect tense NOT the perfect.
Click to expand...
I can see where a claim that the verb form of "formed" being pluperfect helps your case immensely, but looking at a couple of Biblical references, one of which is Strong's on-line Concordance, "formed" as used in Genesis 2:19 isn't regarded as pluperfect, but rather imperfect.

From Strong's

Parsing Information for "formed," Hebrew: "yatsar."
Parsing Information
Stem: Qal
Aspect: Imperfect
​
Definition of Qal

Qal is the most frequently used verb pattern. It expresses the "simple" or "casual" action of the root in the active voice.

Examples: he sat, he ate, he went, he said, he rose, he bought
​
So, I have no idea where you get the idea that "formed" in Gen. 2:19 is pluperfect, but my source disagrees.

The passage in Genesis 2:19 should be read as 'The Lord God HAD formed out of the ground not the Lord God formed...and had formed would mean he'd already formed the animals before creating Adam.
Click to expand...
As I point out above, no it should not.

Second thought

In cases of contradictory passages it's convenient to cite the intentions of ancient authors or the ancient meanings of the original words so as to refute these troublesome passages. However, the fact remains that today's Bibles don't tell the reader of such mistakes---I'm using "mistake" here to denote any word or presentation that leads the reader to form an erroneous notion of what is bing presented. If the Bible says "He ate" instead of the correct "He had eaten" then this is an outright mistake; a biblical error. And, when such mistakes are revealed one has to wonder how many other mistakes lie in the Bible. Mistakes, perhaps very grave ones, which will never be corrected, and the real truth never known.

So, contradictory passages, even those shown not to be contradictory, but merely mistakes, put any notion of Biblical inerrancy and infallibility to rest.

Just sayin'.
 
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Vadergirl123 said:
Jayhawker Soule said:
Vadergirl123 said:
So I read over Mark again a couple times, and Mark never actually says they're eating the passover. In fact he only talks about them preparing for it. At the passover the jews eat unleavened bread(the greek word is azumos) however the greek word used in Mark is artos, which just means bread/ or a loaf(I have a Hebrew dictionary at my house) there's no contradiction.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Nicely done.
Click to expand...
A compliment!!!:D Hahaha thank you
Click to expand...
You're welcome. Honest research and creativity should always be complimented. Of course, that in no way means that the research should not be challenged.

You point to the 'fact' that your scripture does not reference unleavened bread. It seams to me that this is relevant if and only if you are claiming that the "Last Supper" was not a Passover meal. Is that your contention?

The relevant verses are:

gMk 14:1-2
Two days before the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the chief priests and the experts in the law were trying to find a way to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him. For they said, “Not during the feast, so there won’t be a riot among the people.”​
Click to expand...
gMt 276:17
Now on the first day of the feast of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus and said, “Where do you want us to prepare for you to eat the Passover?”​
Click to expand...
gLk 22:1-15
Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is called the Passover, was approaching. The chief priests and the experts in the law were trying to find some way to execute Jesus, for they were afraid of the people. Then Satan entered Judas, the one called Iscariot, who was one of the twelve. He went away and discussed with the chief priests and officers of the temple guard how he might betray Jesus, handing him over to them. They were delighted and arranged to give him money. So Judas agreed and began looking for an opportunity to betray Jesus when no crowd was present. Then the day for the feastof Unleavened Bread came, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare the Passover for us to eat.” They said to him, “Where do you want us to prepare it?” He said to them, “Listen, when you have entered the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him into the house that he enters, and tell the owner of the house, ‘The Teacher says to you, “Where is the guest room where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?”’ Then he will show you a large furnished room upstairs. Make preparations there.” So they went and found things just as he had told them, and they prepared the Passover. Now when the hour came, Jesus took his place at the table and the apostles joined him. And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.​
Click to expand...
I wonder if you'd mind suggesting a timeline that makes sense of this while still making your comments about azumos/artos relevant? Thanks. :)
 
V

Vadergirl123

Active Member
Jayhawker Soule said:
I wonder if you'd mind suggesting a timeline that makes sense of this while still making your comments about azumos/artos relevant? Thanks. :)
Click to expand...
Sure I woudln't mind, but last time I did a timeline I used all the gospel accounts to describe the resurrection event, and I had a couple people tell me the Bible can't work like that.(I still don't agree with why it can't) Anyway weren't you one of those people?
 
V

Vadergirl123

Active Member
Jayhawker Soule said:
By the way, you seem to be skipping around quite a bit. May I ask why?
Click to expand...
I think I had someone else ask me the same thing earlier in the thread. I'm knocking out all the easy contradictions, some of them are going to take alot of study/research and since I have a bunch to look at I wanted to save the hardest(or most time-consuming) for last. However lately I've been busy so I haven't done too many of them lately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top