Does the Bible Contradict Itself ?

[PruePhillip]

But it is not in there. Quote mining is a form of lying. And excessively vague verses fail automatically as prophesies. One can go shopping for "fulfillment" and find it several times over.

No, this is not 'quote mining', Matthew is quoting from a non-extant document. It obviously WAS around in his day, otherwise critics would have said he made it up. Documents such as the genealogies were available in Jesus' day but were destroyed by the Romans.
I haven't seen the nativity scene in the Old Testament - make little difference. We are told the Messiah would be raised as a child, of the tribe of David, be rejected of his own brothers and sisters, suffer at the hands of his own people, sold for 40 pieces of silver, be tried and condemned like a common criminal, his garments gambled for, his hands and feet pierced, offered gall to drink and to look back at his suffering and be glad that in him the Gentiles would trust.
And a lot more.

I don't read his walking on water in the OT, or overturning the tables... oh wait..... "the zeal of mine house has eaten me up" is that a prophecy? Certainly some anger about the temple was prophesized. The disciples certainly felt the overturning of the money tables was something they read in the OT.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, this is not 'quote mining', Matthew is quoting from a non-extant document. It obviously WAS around in his day, otherwise critics would have said he made it up. Documents such as the genealogies were available in Jesus' day but were destroyed by the Romans.
I haven't seen the nativity scene in the Old Testament - make little difference. We are told the Messiah would be raised as a child, of the tribe of David, be rejected of his own brothers and sisters, suffer at the hands of his own people, sold for 40 pieces of silver, be tried and condemned like a common criminal, his garments gambled for, his hands and feet pierced, offered gall to drink and to look back at his suffering and be glad that in him the Gentiles would trust.
And a lot more.

I don't read his walking on water in the OT, or overturning the tables... oh wait..... "the zeal of mine house has eaten me up" is that a prophecy? Certainly some anger about the temple was prophesized. The disciples certainly felt the overturning of the money tables was something they read in the OT.

Of course it is. Taking quotes out of context and calling them "prophesies" is always quote mining. I am betting that all of the examples you listed of supposed prophecies are simply quotes taken out ofcontext.

 

[nPeace]

No, this is not 'quote mining', Matthew is quoting from a non-extant document. It obviously WAS around in his day, otherwise critics would have said he made it up. Documents such as the genealogies were available in Jesus' day but were destroyed by the Romans.
I haven't seen the nativity scene in the Old Testament - make little difference. We are told the Messiah would be raised as a child, of the tribe of David, be rejected of his own brothers and sisters, suffer at the hands of his own people, sold for 40 pieces of silver, be tried and condemned like a common criminal, his garments gambled for, his hands and feet pierced, offered gall to drink and to look back at his suffering and be glad that in him the Gentiles would trust.
And a lot more.

I don't read his walking on water in the OT, or overturning the tables... oh wait..... "the zeal of mine house has eaten me up" is that a prophecy? Certainly some anger about the temple was prophesized. The disciples certainly felt the overturning of the money tables was something they read in the OT.

This is true, according to scripture. Luke 24:44-46

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is true, according to scripture. Luke 24:44-46

Right, the author of Luke was guilty of quote mining, that is what we are discussing.

 

[Skwim]

That's not a copyist error as I already mentioned.

Of course it isn't. It's an example I cooked up. Sheesh! Do you not know what "maybe" means in its given context?

Again. It is a matter of who is reading the text, and that one's motives and views also are to be considered.
Different people read the Bible, and come to different conclusions.

Fine, then without straining to the point of making ridiculous assertions, reading

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.​

and

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.​

please tell me how different people can come to a different conclusions about the accordance of the two other than they are NOT in accord. That they are contradictions. Does 42 = 22 or not?

Some view it as ridiculous. Some view it as the most reliable and beneficial book there is.

Wholly immaterial. Your preaching doesn't impress.

.

 

[nPeace]

Of course it isn't. It's an example I cooked up. Sheesh! Do you not know what "maybe" means in its given context?


Fine, then without straining to the point of making ridiculous assertions, reading

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.​

and

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.​

please tell me how different people can come to a different conclusions about the accordance of the two other than they are NOT in accord. That they are contradictions. Does 42 = 22 or not?



Wholly immaterial. Your preaching doesn't impress.

.

Perhaps you didn't understand my post.
Repeating...
That's not a copyist error as I already mentioned.
Did you read the information I posted? There are hundreds of manuscripts that can be compared, to detect such errors.
If all the manuscripts said the same exact thing, then it would be difficult to determine possible errors, but that's not the case.

In other words, say for example, you have 16 manuscripts, if all 16 were a perfect match, then we have no reason to conclude that there are errors.
However, if in manuscript 14, we find a difference in a word, number, etc, we have the other 15, to help us see that the word or number was a copyist error.

Various translations of the Bible exists. Translators used various manuscripts. Some translators do not use the same meticulous care as others, which do not always result in accuracy.
So for example...
Note here, that some translators say 42, some say 22, but the majority say 22.
Why?
They used different manuscripts.

Repeating...
Thanks to many copyist, the ancient texts have been preserved for more than a thousand years.
How the Bible Came to Us
Through the centuries, scribes meticulously copied these books. During the Middle Ages, a group of Jewish scribes known as the Masoretes carried on that tradition. The oldest complete Masoretic manuscript is the Leningrad Codex, which dates from 1008/1009 C.E. However, in the middle of the 20th century, some 220 Biblical manuscripts or fragments were discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Those Biblical manuscripts were more than a thousand years older than the Leningrad Codex. A comparison of the Dead Sea Scrolls with the Leningrad Codex confirms a vital point: While the Dead Sea Scrolls contain some variations in wording, none of those variations affect the message itself.

In other words, as was said before, it is not expected that a method of copying - often by hand - will produce a perfect copy of the original, but if you compare texts that were copied over a period of a thousand years, and only find slight variations in wording, that should tell us something important.
The texts can be trusted to be almost a perfect match of the original.

We believe the reason for this is that its author Jehovah God, made sure that his word was preserved, for our benefit.
That would mean that he used men who valued his word, (see the video) and we see this even today in people who are willing to die or be imprisoned, for the sake of keeping his word.

 

[PruePhillip]

Of course it is. Taking quotes out of context and calling them "prophesies" is always quote mining. I am betting that all of the examples you listed of supposed prophecies are simply quotes taken out ofcontext.

This is an argument without specifics.
Please read Isaiah 53 and tell me who Isaiah is speaking of.

 

[PruePhillip]

Right, the author of Luke was guilty of quote mining, that is what we are discussing.

Not sure of the true definition of 'quote mining' but it apparently is something you are urged to do. Jesus himself said "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
No, not make something up as the Jews did, but seek to divine the true intention of the scripture's author.
There's an opposite to this, what shall we call it, "quote dismissal" ?? The Jews do it with those prophecies concerning the Messiah as Redeemer and the Lamb of God. They felt they had no need for a redeemer, they wanted a worldly king instead. Catholics do it when they say Jesus had no brothers and sisters 'cos Mary was a virgin.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not sure of the true definition of 'quote mining' but it apparently is something you are urged to do. Jesus himself said "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
No, not make something up as the Jews did, but seek to divine the true intention of the scripture's author.
There's an opposite to this, what shall we call it, "quote dismissal" ?? The Jews do it with those prophecies concerning the Messiah as Redeemer and the Lamb of God. They felt they had no need for a redeemer, they wanted a worldly king instead. Catholics do it when they say Jesus had no brothers and sisters 'cos Mary was a virgin.

It is an error to think that quotes can be read literally. The Gospels are far from being even eyewitness accounts. And where do the Jews quote mine. And Catholics are a Christian sect with their own problems.


A quote mine is a quote taken out of context to support an argument. The vast majority of Christian "prophecies" are not prophecies at all when read in context.

 

[PruePhillip]

It is an error to think that quotes can be read literally. The Gospels are far from being even eyewitness accounts. And where do the Jews quote mine. And Catholics are a Christian sect with their own problems.


A quote mine is a quote taken out of context to support an argument. The vast majority of Christian "prophecies" are not prophecies at all when read in context.

To repeat, the broad thrust of biblical prophecy was this:
The Messiah will come, both as Redeemer and King.
The Jews will form a nation, under Monarchy and law, but lose that nation when they do not receive the Messiah as Redeemer.
The Messiah will be embraced by the Gentiles. When the Gentiles time is fulfilled, and their churches fall, the Jews will come again to their ancestral lands (this is NOW)
No nations will receive the Messiah when he comes again as reigning King. Not that it matters.

 

[Skwim]

The texts can be trusted to be almost a perfect match of the original.

So what?

Which do you trust to be the truth:

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.​

OR

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.
​

Not that it matters because the Bible is still telling the reader both are correct. One reader reads 2 kings but not 2 Chronicles and goes away thinking Ahaziah was 22 when he began his reign. Another reader reads 2 Chronicles but not 2 Kings and goes away thinking Ahaziah was 42 when he began his reign.

What kind of Trustworthy Score would you give a book that did things like this, present contradiction after contradiction?

Heck, for all we know Ahaziah may have been 32 when he began his reign. If one age can be wrong who's to say both ages can't be wrong? The Bible has already showed it can't be trusted.


.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To repeat, the broad thrust of biblical prophecy was this:
The Messiah will come, both as Redeemer and King.
The Jews will form a nation, under Monarchy and law, but lose that nation when they do not receive the Messiah as Redeemer.
The Messiah will be embraced by the Gentiles. When the Gentiles time is fulfilled, and their churches fall, the Jews will come again to their ancestral lands (this is NOW)
No nations will receive the Messiah when he comes again as reigning King. Not that it matters.

It is not what the Jews wanted, it what mattered was what the prophecies said. And a world king was what was in the prophecies. That is why the authors of the Gospels took the dishonest route of quote mining. Since Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies they made up a bunch of their own.

 

[PruePhillip]

It is not what the Jews wanted, it what mattered was what the prophecies said. And a world king was what was in the prophecies. That is why the authors of the Gospels took the dishonest route of quote mining. Since Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies they made up a bunch of their own.

So do you think all those prophecies concerning:
1 - Israel and the Temple ending with the Messiah
2 - the Jews rejecting the Messiah
3 - Messiah as the Redeemer/sacrificial Lamb/pierced and torn figure

are later additions to the Hebrew bible?

Truth be told, the Jews wanted a worldly king and saw no need of a Redeemer for their sins. They ignore the Redeemer prophecies. They have little explanation as to why this victorious King would not save them from 2,000 years of exile and death.

The notion that this Jesus will return to fulfill the rest of these prophecies is simply fanciful. But there are a number of Worldly King prophecies where the Messiah has returned:

"On that day I will set out to destroy all the nations that attack Jerusalem. And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child..."

and

Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem! See, your King comes to you, righteous and victorious, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim and the horse from Jerusalem, and the bow of war will be broken. Then He will proclaim peace to the nations; His dominion will extend from sea to sea, and from the Euphrates to the ends of the earth.…

 

[Subduction Zone]

So do you think all those prophecies concerning:
1 - Israel and the Temple ending with the Messiah
2 - the Jews rejecting the Messiah
3 - Messiah as the Redeemer/sacrificial Lamb/pierced and torn figure

are later additions to the Hebrew bible?

Truth be told, the Jews wanted a worldly king and saw no need of a Redeemer for their sins. They ignore the Redeemer prophecies. They have little explanation as to why this victorious King would not save them from 2,000 years of exile and death.

The notion that this Jesus will return to fulfill the rest of these prophecies is simply fanciful. But there are a number of Worldly King prophecies where the Messiah has returned:

"On that day I will set out to destroy all the nations that attack Jerusalem. And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child..."

and

Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem! See, your King comes to you, righteous and victorious, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim and the horse from Jerusalem, and the bow of war will be broken. Then He will proclaim peace to the nations; His dominion will extend from sea to sea, and from the Euphrates to the ends of the earth.…

You misunderstood the verses that you are talking about. And you were already corrected on your smear against the Jews.

 

[PruePhillip]

You misunderstood the verses that you are talking about. And you were already corrected on your smear against the Jews.

Where is the "smear" against Jews? I am part Jewish myself.
Saying I "misunderstand" is fine - just WHAT am I "misunderstanding" ???

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where is the "smear" against Jews? I am part Jewish myself.
Saying I "misunderstand" is fine - just WHAT am I "misunderstanding" ???

When you claimed that they "wanted" an earthly king. If you read the actual messianic prophecies that is what is predicted.

And let's go over the verses that your are basing your beliefs on. Number one rule, no reinterpreting after the fact.

 

[nPeace]

So what?

Which do you trust to be the truth:

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.​

OR

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.
​

Not that it matters because the Bible is still telling the reader both are correct. One reader reads 2 kings but not 2 Chronicles and goes away thinking Ahaziah was 22 when he began his reign. Another reader reads 2 Chronicles but not 2 Kings and goes away thinking Ahaziah was 42 when he began his reign.

What kind of Trustworthy Score would you give a book that did things like this, present contradiction after contradiction?

Heck, for all we know Ahaziah may have been 32 when he began his reign. If one age can be wrong who's to say both ages can't be wrong? The Bible has already showed it can't be trusted.


.

Well. it appears the loss is on the one who does not choose a translation that is accurate, nor take the time to study seriously, nor care.
Would that be you?

I showed you various translation that say 22 in both accounts, and you say, "So what?"

 

[nPeace]

To repeat, the broad thrust of biblical prophecy was this:
The Messiah will come, both as Redeemer and King.
The Jews will form a nation, under Monarchy and law, but lose that nation when they do not receive the Messiah as Redeemer.
The Messiah will be embraced by the Gentiles. When the Gentiles time is fulfilled, and their churches fall, the Jews will come again to their ancestral lands (this is NOW)
No nations will receive the Messiah when he comes again as reigning King. Not that it matters.

What's so remarkable about the harmony of the Bible too, is shown in another reason the Messiah came.
(John 18:37) . . .for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth.. . .

The fact that Messiah would reveal the truth, is evident that a lie or lies on a scale of great magnitude had been told - which we find in the very first book of the Bible. Genesis 3:1-5
The lie was clarified by the Messiah - John 8:44
What the lie involved was identified - Matthew 6:9, 10
(Job 2:3-5; Proverbs 27:11)

That universal lie challenged God's right as Sovereign, and the Messiah came to expose it, and ultimately undo its effects.

This is contained in the prophets and Psalms, and continued right through the writings of the apostles - including the last book, Revelations.

There is much evidence of complete harmony in the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What's so remarkable about the harmony of the Bible too, is shown in another reason the Messiah came.
(John 18:37) . . .for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth.. . .

The fact that Messiah would reveal the truth, is evident that a lie or lies on a scale of great magnitude had been told - which we find in the very first book of the Bible. Genesis 3:1-5
The lie was clarified by the Messiah - John 8:44
What the lie involved was identified - Matthew 6:9, 10
(Job 2:3-5; Proverbs 27:11)

That universal lie challenged God's right as Sovereign, and the Messiah came to expose it, and ultimately undo its effects.

This is contained in the prophets and Psalms, and continued right through the writings of the apostles - including the last book, Revelations.

There is much evidence of complete harmony in the Bible.

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

 

[Skwim]

Well. it appears the loss is on the one who does not choose a translation that is accurate, nor take the time to study seriously, nor care.

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.

I showed you various translation that say 22 in both accounts, and you say, "So what?"

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.

.
.