1. 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

Discussion in 'Biblical Debates' started by Mister Emu, Sep 23, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Corban

    Corban Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2004
    Messages:
    159
    Ratings:
    +9
    The Bible does have contradictions and it does have error, i believe that when the words of the Bible came from God to man they were perfect and pure, but they have been changed and distorted through translation by sometimes ignorant sometimes wicked people. that is why we rely on continuing revelation to understand the word of God, otherwise we can not believe any of it. No serious person can say there are not mistakes in the bible, I firmly believe the bible to be the word of God, but i also readily state there are errors and if there is even one, they how can we know the truth of anything in it, any one could argue any verse they don't like and merely say it's a bad translation. so with out continuing revelation from God, no one could hope to understand the Bible. This is why God has called prophets in our day, and this is why He brought forth the Book of Mormon, which was written by prophets and translated by a prophet, it stands as another testament of Christ and testifies of the truth of the Bible and helps us understand God's words.
     
  2. Pah

    Pah Uber all member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,001
    Ratings:
    +1,059
    The washing of feet is mentioned in John and not in the other renditions. John however fails to mention the communion of bread and wine. Was it just an oversight on John's part or was he emphasizing the attitude one should take to effectively lead the people of God. as Lawrence O. Richards of the '91 edition of the Victor Bible Background Commentary, NT believes.

    But John is not alone in failing to mention the bread and wine - the Pauline epistles have no reference to this highest of sacraments. J. D. Hill says, "The book of Acts describes believers meeting to break bread (2:42, 46 and 20:7) with no reference to a cup, a Lords Supper, or the symbolic nature of the eating the body or drinking of the blood of a savior Jesus in order to receive the heavenly blessing". This is a strong indication that that there was little significance of the ceremony to the early church - missing in John, missing in Paul and downplayed in Acts.

    But the disharmony continues -

    J.D. Hill writes, "The three evangelists' who do include the last supper cannot agree on which happened first: The drinking from the cup or the eating of the bread. Matthew, in 26:26 says, "Now as their eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed and broke it...." Then in v. 27: "and he took a cup...." Mark, in 14:22 has Jesus breaking the bread and raising the cup. But, Luke disagrees. Luke 22:17: "...and he took a cup and when he had given thanks he said, take this and divide it among yourselves." Luke continues in verse 19, "...and he took the bread...and broke it." Luke does give an instruction to "...do this in remembrance of me." and (v 20) likewise the cup after supper saying, "this cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood." Clearly this is an instruction for future remembrances. It certainly was not the order of this particular event."

    Perhaps there is no error here - but the synonym "disharmony" sure applies

    -pah-
     
  3. Pah

    Pah Uber all member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,001
    Ratings:
    +1,059
    1 Chronicles 3:4-9 (NIV) lists Shammua, Shobab, Nathan and Solomon. These four were by Bathsheba daughter of Ammiel. 6 There were also Ibhar, Elishua, Eliphelet, 7 Nogah, Nepheg, Japhia, 8 Elishama, Eliada and Eliphelet-nine in all.

    1 Chronicles 14 (NIV) has Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, Solomon, 5 Ibhar, Elishua, Elpelet, 6 Nogah, Nepheg, Japhia, 7 Elishama, Beeliada and Eliphele

    2 Sam 5:13 (NIV) These are the names of the children born to him there: Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, Solomon, 15 Ibhar, Elishua, Nepheg, Japhia, 16 Elishama, Eliada and Eliphelet.

    Eliphelet is listed as both the third and ninth son in Chronicles 3 and only as the ninth and the third son is now Elpelet in Chronicle 14 and disappears in Samuel 5.

    -pah-
     
  4. Pah

    Pah Uber all member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,001
    Ratings:
    +1,059
    Matthew 10:9-10 Do not take gold or silver or copper for your belts; no sack for the journey, or a second tunic, or sandals, or walking stick. The laborer deserves his keep.

    Luke 9:3 He said to them, "Take nothing for the journey, neither walking stick, nor sack, nor food, nor money, and let no one take a second tunic."

    Mark 6:8-9 He instructed them to take nothing for the journey but a walking stick--no food, no sack, no money in their belts.

    Who wore sandals and who carried a stick. Luke apparently was shod as was Mark. Matthew had tough feet. Mark was the only one to have assistence on those steep hills.

    -pah-
     
  5. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +950
  6. Pah

    Pah Uber all member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,001
    Ratings:
    +1,059
    I was struck by one paragraph of the link (the whole site is yet to come)
    What this arrogantly says in #1 is just not true. First of all, it is a bit of the cart before the horse but known formally as a circular argument. Some of the more erudite atheists are those with seminary creditionals that have pastored for years. I don't fall into that particular category (the scholastic preparation) but read what they say. Their debates with aclaimed apologeticists are provoking. Of course, these atheists are a smaller subset than the seminary graduates in "field work" but they definetly have a presence.

    In many of these boards where Christianity is debated between atheist and Christian, there is a more knowledgeable crowd on both sides. But even amongst these there are those that do fall to the critism expressed. I'd wager that amongst the general Christian population, even these would stir up a discomfort. If the author speaks for Christianity, in toto, then he would seem to be calling the kettle black.

    As for #2, I have my opinions about why the author has not met a "compotent" atheist.

    I have in my library Josh McDowell's The New Evidedence That Demands a Vedict, one of the better published apologists. Actually it is not new but a recompulation of Books I and II. There is money to be made! (sorry for that little outburst - but, hehehe, not the truth behind it - I see it also on the home page of the linked site). What McDowell presents is the same old protestations that are only sung by the choir - there remains serious doubt when a logical inquiry is made.

    But my thoughts ramble now over the subjects of serious thrreads

    -pah-
     
  7. Melody

    Melody Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,261
    Ratings:
    +558
    But then the Bible Study would have been done while they weren't an atheist.

    If you don't believe in God or the Bible, then it would be impossible to study it in the same way a Christian does. Perhaps this is what the person was trying to say.

    The Bible studies I've done were all about furthering my relationship with God through the study of His divinely inspired Word.* How can an atheist do this when they don't believe in God? I suppose you could study the Bible on a secular level but then that would mean taking the Bible literally as you would a history book. That may be a study of the bible but it's not Bible study as Christians know it.

    *( I say "inspired" because it's quite obvious that the thousands of years of translation are not exactly correct but the overall message is pretty consistent. )
     
  8. Pah

    Pah Uber all member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,001
    Ratings:
    +1,059
    Most of these that I know continue to study the bible perhaps with a different aim then you might have but study it they do. At one time, they studied it with the same aim so they are very familiar with the way and purpose you have when you study it.

    I'm sure you would say that God's word is for everyone and that would include atheists. If there were spiritual meaning in the word, it should be apparent in the word. It is a circular argument to say that you should read the bible to receive revelation of the word to believe what you read.

    It is also a stumbling block for many to think that God would interveine in the world to have his word written and not participate in the translation and copying of the word. Not having agreement among the various publications of the word leads to the supsicion that it was not God who wrote/dictated it but that man composed the work in the first place as man has done ever since. Discrepencies, disharmonies, and error only strengthen that suspicion.

    -pah-
     
  9. Melody

    Melody Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,261
    Ratings:
    +558
    Yes, but I think there's still an unconscious bias when they're reading that doesn't allow them to study the way a believer does. I can study the Qur'an but since I'm not a believer, I will not pull the same things out when studying as a Muslim will because this isn't just an intellectual exercise.


    Yes, to those who will open their minds and hearts to see it. An atheist, by their very admission to being a nonbeliever, can't do that. You've already shut your mind and heart to God and his message.


    Not at all. We were given choice and free will. Unfortunately some choose wrong. However, based on my own personal experience with Bible study and just reading the Bible for comfort, the underlying message stays consistent throughout.
     
  10. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +950
    pah, did you not read the rest of the article, or are you trying to be deceptive?

    For those of you who did not read the article from Dave Armstrong which pah is refering to, this sentence follows the quote:


    In the interest of clarity and honesty, I wanted to make sure everyone saw this.

    Peace,
    Scott
     
  11. Ceridwen018

    Ceridwen018 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,768
    Ratings:
    +399
    Aha, but this goes both ways. If you think that you as a Christian do not have an unconscious bias, you're fooling yourself. Atheists perhaps cannot (or choose not...) to study the bible as a Christian does, but likewise Christians cannot (or choose not) to study it as an Atheist does.

    Another point to keep in mind, is that many Atheists were once die-hard Christians--I know I was.

    On the contrary. I am not an Atheist because I "hate god" or think that "Christianity is stupid"--I am an Atheist because that is what makes the most sense to me with the limited knowledge that I have. Therefore, I have not closed my heart to god at all. I desire truth as much as anyone here--why would I shut out any possibility? I like to say, 'prove me wrong any day', and I absolutely mean it. I am open to any and all points of view, including god.

    The fact that you have to be a believer FIRST before the bible makes any sort of spiritual sense is troubling to me. In my opinion, it only affirms my theory that god is a man-made psychological tool.
     
  12. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +950
    Ceridwen,

    I don't think I understand what an "atheist" is then.......
    ....... is not an atheist point of view as I understand the word, but agnostic. An atheist has made up his/her mind........ it seems you have not. Just wondering why you describe yourself as an atheist if you think there is even a remote possiblity that you could be wrong.

    Scott
     
  13. linwood

    linwood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,049
    Ratings:
    +861
    This one has been harmonized alot.

    I`d like to see your take on it Mr. Emu or anyones for that matter,

    Contradicts
    I have seen alot of people attempt to harmonize this one but it`s never satisfying.
    There are too many points of contradiction to do it well.

    1. Matthew has Judas die by hanging.
    Acts has Judas die by stomach bursting.


    This is often harmonized by saying that Judas hung himself but the rope broke and he fell to the ground where his stomach burst.
    I find it difficult to accept that Paul (Acts) would have left out a piece of information as important as Judas hanging himself.

    2.Matthew has Judas returning the silver he recieved from the Priests, they then took that money and bought Potters field.
    Acts has Judas buying Potters field with "The reward of inequity" .


    I have no idea how you would harmonize this part since ...
    Both are talking about the same field.
    If Judas returned the money how could he have bought the field?
    If you are to claim that "The reward of inequity" is anything but the 30 pieces of silver the priests gave Judas you must have some knowledge of where this money came from and why it was "of inequity".
    One says the priests bought the field and the other says Judas bought the field.
     
  14. linwood

    linwood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,049
    Ratings:
    +861
    An atheist doesn`t say "There is no god".
    An atheist says "I see no reason to believe in god".

    An atheist can`t deny god since he/she doesn`t have a belief in god.
    How can you deny what you don`t even believe exists?
     
  15. Pah

    Pah Uber all member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,001
    Ratings:
    +1,059
    I did read that statement and, to be honest, do not remember if I took it into consideration. I thank you for bringing it up again.

    The two statements taken together remind me of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. The author affirms the first by making conditions in the second despite his protestations in the seemingly explanatory "I believe in #2, not #1. As long as you keep thinking I believe #1, you will miss the point of what I am contending." It could have been worded differently to avoid this muddle.

    -pah-
     
  16. Corban

    Corban Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2004
    Messages:
    159
    Ratings:
    +9
    to not believe something exists is to deny its existance.
     
  17. Pah

    Pah Uber all member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,001
    Ratings:
    +1,059
    Scott, (and others)
    Let me recommend a much more comprhensive aplogetic site

    Tektonics run by Robert Turkell under the name J. P. Holding. He has his own list of aplogetics arranged by verse and a separate, major "refutation" of the "disharmonies" found by Farrell Till. I must warn you that James/Robert is one sarcastic writer - most of his response is riddicle. But it is much more extensive than your reference. Plenty of articles there also. Turkell is a member and affiliate of TheologyWeb and posts there under the ID JPHolding

    -pah-
     
  18. Corban

    Corban Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2004
    Messages:
    159
    Ratings:
    +9
    Acts 9:7/ the men with Paul heard a voice but saw no man. Then Acts 22:9, says the men with Paul a light but didn't hear a voice
     
  19. Hirohito18200

    Hirohito18200 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    241
    Ratings:
    +16
    Since when did being an athiest mean that you are necessarily closeminded? There is a great percentage of athiests who who have come to their beliefs out of tireless investigation and questioning, so how can you assume that once they arived at their conclusion that they are all utterly finished with their exploration. I think that is a dangerous, not to mention unfounded notion to have.

    Might anyone know of a library of any of the great apologetic vs. athiest debates that have taken place. I know of some great ones that really boil down theology to a core and it would be nice to be able to quote them...
     
  20. Corban

    Corban Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2004
    Messages:
    159
    Ratings:
    +9
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...