Does the Bible Contradict Itself ?

[dfnj]

It is impossible for God to lie. (Hebrew 6:18)
So how could his book be filled with glaring inconsistencies and significant discrepancies and still be called the Word of God?

Is consideration of how we got the Bible today the answer ?
These writings were "transmitted" or "entrusted" to scribes, sopherims and Masoretes, who made copies repeatedly for over a thousand year, until the Middle Ages.

Then they were translated from Hebrew to Greek and then to latin, from these thousands of manuscript Master copies were made. From these came the English translations.

Copied Manusscripts and Translations are not inspired !

Thus some scribal variations crept in. But none are of such scope and weight as to cast doubt on the inspiration and authority of the Bible as a whole. By careful examination, seeming contradictions can be shown to have an honest solution.

At times, Bible writers do not always seem to agree on matters relating to figures, order of events, wording of quotations, and so forth.
But consider: If you were to ask several eyewitnesses of an event to write down what they saw, would all accounts coincide entirely in wording and detail? If they did, would you not be suspicious of collusion among the writers?
So, too, Bible writers were allowed by God to retain their own particular style and language, while God saw to it that his ideas and pertinent facts were conveyed accurately.

But are there not texts in the Bible that say just the opposite of other texts?
Let us consider just one as an example:

Genesis 2:2 that records that God rested from all his work. Contrasting with this is Jesus comment at John 5:17 where he says that God has kept working until now. But as the context shows, the record in Genesis is speaking specifically of Gods works of material creation, while Jesus was referring to Gods works concerning his divine guidance and care for mankind.

Most people fail to put forth necessary effort, finding it so much easier just to go along with the critics.
Perhaps God is giving them exactly what they want:
2 Thess 3:11. "...That is why God lets an operation of error go to them...."

Could we not, instead imitate the example of the apostles who when perplexed by what they called a hard saying, silenced every objection with this: Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life....(John 6:60) ?

Yeah, it has errors. It's has bad scientific statements. It was written by misogynist men. It doesn't condemn slavery which is kind of like giving slavery the okay.

Yes, it has really bad problems. But, you are missing the point. The essential message that having acceptable morality is important remains even if you choose to ignore it.

 

[Skwim]

3) There is no contradiction.
Matthew 21:2-7 tells us that there was both a donkey and a colt. Mark and Luke focus on the colt only and mention that no one had ever sat upon it. Mark and Luke are focusing on this detail while Matthew focuses on the prophetic fulfillment (Matthew 21:4-5). Logically, if there are two animals, then there is also, at least, one animal. To say there was one does not mean there weren't two. This is not a verbal game. It is an issue of logic. Remember, the writers of the gospels wrote for a purpose. It was not to recount a chronologically precise account in minute details. It was to convey the validity of Christ. The fact that Mark and Luke mention one colt does not mean there is a contradiction anymore than saying that Frank and Joe came to my house last night but today I tell a friend about what Joe said last night and don't mention Frank.

Jesus came into Jerusalem with how many animals?
One - a colt. Mark 11:7 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.

them ≠ it​

4)
The answer lies in two areas. 1 Chronicles 20:5 says, "And there was war with the Philistines again, and Elhanan the son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam." This is the correct answer; namely, that Elhanan killed Goliath's brother.

But this isn't what the bible says. The Bible says:

ERV
Elhanan. 2 Samuel 21:19 19 . . . There was another battle with the Philistines, in Gob, and Elhanan, son of Jair from Bethlehem, killed Goliath of Gath

ASV
And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob; and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Beth-lehemite slew Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.

AMP
There was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, a Bethlehemite, killed Goliath the Gittite, whose spear shaft was like a weaver’s beam.

AMPC
There was again war at Gob with the Philistines, and Elhanan son of Jaare-oregim, a Bethlehemite, slew Goliath the Gittite, whose spear shaft was like a weaver’s beam.

ESV
And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite, struck down Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

GNT
There was another battle with the Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan son of Jair from Bethlehem killed Goliath from Gath, whose spear had a shaft as thick as the bar on a weaver's loom.

LEB
There was again a battle with the Philistines at Gob. And Elhanan the son of Jaare-Oregim, the Bethlehemite, killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like the beam of a weaver.

NASB
There was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.

NLV
There was war with the Philistines again at Gob. And Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite. Goliath’s spear was like the heavy piece of wood used by a cloth-maker.
​

And so on.

.

 

[PruePhillip]

Hmm...

"So how could his book be filled with glaring inconsistencies and significant discrepancies and still be called the Word of God?"

Answer: It couldn't. So either the Bible has issues and isn't holy, or you are misunderstanding some things in the Bible.

No you did not. You said:

"Of course the bible "contradicts" itself - and it probably does so to put off the all-wise, all-knowing, know-it-all cynics."



And I'm calling call:

View attachment 23455​

And again I'm calling

View attachment 23455
​

Obviously you should have phrased your

"We study them and FIND NO DISCREPANCIES."​

as

"We study them and find no discrepancies."

​

Although it wouldn't make it any less false.

.

Not sure where you are coming from.
Let's try again.
Certainly there are discrepancies - that's obvious to anyone who reads the bible, particularly the Gospels where you have four accounts which vary in some details.

If there were absolutely NO discrepancies the cynic would say this suggests they aren't independent accounts. You can't get four historians agreeing on every detail of anything.
And if the details vary slightly then the cynic will say there are discrepancies, therefor the accounts are not correct.

 

[PruePhillip]

Yeah, it has errors. It's has bad scientific statements. It was written by misogynist men. It doesn't condemn slavery which is kind of like giving slavery the okay.

Yes, it has really bad problems. But, you are missing the point. The essential message that having acceptable morality is important remains even if you choose to ignore it.

This is an old argument. But slavery was part and parcel of the ancient world.
The bible doesn't condemn slavery anymore than it condemns other human activities. If you are reading Christianity the message is the Gospel, not war, adultery, homelessness, poverty or global warming.

One day society might find that riding horses is cruel (it's coming) and people will say "If the bible was worth reading it would have condemned horse riding!"

As it is, the bible says that he who leads another into slavery will themselves be led into slavery.

 

[dfnj]

Not sure where you are coming from.
Let's try again.
Certainly there are discrepancies - that's obvious to anyone who reads the bible, particularly the Gospels where you have four accounts which vary in some details.

If there were absolutely NO discrepancies the cynic would say this suggests they aren't independent accounts. You can't get four historians agreeing on every detail of anything.
And if the details vary slightly then the cynic will say there are discrepancies, therefor the accounts are not correct.

The problem with cynics is they forget to be cynical about their own cynicism.

 

[dfnj]

This is an old argument. But slavery was part and parcel of the ancient world.
The bible doesn't condemn slavery anymore than it condemns other human activities. If you are reading Christianity the message is the Gospel, not war, adultery, homelessness, poverty or global warming.

One day society might find that riding horses is cruel (it's coming) and people will say "If the bible was worth reading it would have condemned horse riding!"

As it is, the bible says that he who leads another into slavery will themselves be led into slavery.

I don't really disagree with anything you are saying. I think in terms of morality, the Bible needs to read in the historical context in which it was written.

 

[Skwim]

Not sure where you are coming from.
Let's try again.
Certainly there are discrepancies - that's obvious to anyone who reads the bible, particularly the Gospels where you have four accounts which vary in some details.

If there were absolutely NO discrepancies the cynic would say this suggests they aren't independent accounts. You can't get four historians agreeing on every detail of anything.
And if the details vary slightly then the cynic will say there are discrepancies, therefor the accounts are not correct.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh. I misread your

"Now.. this is how the cynic operates.
We have four accounts of Jesus, written by eye witnesses before they died (save for Luke who compiled accounts)
Okay?
We study them and FIND NO DISCREPANCIES."
​

as your claim that there were no discrepancies in the gospels. Your sentence and paragraph structure, and punctuation is confusing.

.

.

 

[shunyadragon]

Haven't learned much about that yet

Awesome.
Is it okey if i nag you with a question here and there? (Not religious related )

Of course.

I have no other choice than trust your word as you claim it with certainty.
Although "Never" and Science is never a great statement

It works here, because the surface and subsurface of the whole earth is well known. the surface of the earth is covered by weathered rock and soil up to over a hundred feet thick in places, that has not been disturbed by any sort of world flood for millions of years. There are alluvial deposits and foot slope deposits hundreds of feet thick in places, There was glaciation (not mentioned in the Bible), regional and tidal floods near the coast line and associated with the melting of glaciers, but not on one shred of evidence of a world flood.

I will appreciate some reference

The Black Sea rise in Sea level ~7;500 years ago has by some described as a candidate for the Noah flood.Initially if was thought to be devastatingly catastrophic, but more recent research show an initial inundation locally at the bosperous straits, but an average of 15-19 cm per year throughout the history of the flooding of the Black Sea basin. There are many problems with this claim: (1) Recent geologic research has shown that most of the flooding was not catastrophic but gradual over weeks, months if not years. People residing on the coast could have walked away from the flood. (2) It only covered a fairly narrow band on the South side of the Black Sea. On the North side it was more extensive, but not regional. (3) a little old to fit a Biblical scenario.

From: 7 500 B.C. The Flood In The Black Sea. Studies legends and disputes

They prove that the current Black Sea 7500 years ago was a large freshwater lake with no connection to the ocean. The level of t. Pomegranate. “Neurexin” pool was approximately 90–120 meters lower than today, and today shelf represented drought. With the warming of the Earth average temperature happen to 5o C higher than today.

Black Sea Flood Map
The ongoing intensive melting of glaciers dramatically risen global sea levels, the Mediterranean and the Aegean Sea. Saltwater overcomes the natural barrier Bosphorus and catastrophically poured into freshwater Black Lake. Its level rose by 15–18 cm. Per day and the water swept the land of 2–2.5 km. inside the then stores. The ancient shores of the former lake remained at about 90 km. offshore. Black Sea basin that was the true ecological collapse. From the salty ocean water died freshwater flora and fauna. Deep-occurring hydrogen sulfide layer that exists today.

I have been around the world looking at geology including North America, Europe, Israel, India, South America, Central America and China. No evidence of a world or regional flood to fit the Biblical account. The thick weathered and oxidized regolith (weathered rock) that has cover much of the earth below the slopes of the mountains, Great plains, and in the flood plains that formed over millions of years. No evidence of a flood.

How about An earth quake? Can one cause a sort of a Geyser or something? (Just curious

No, see below for the nature of subterranean water, small, very small pockets of water not free flowing water.

Basic on simple basic Newtonian physics, and the Laws of Thermodynamics this is not possible, besides the lack of evidence for such a catastrophic event.

It clearly states that there is a probability that there are unbound water inside earth in a depth of hundreds of kilometer below.

"Steven Shirey, a geochemist at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Washington, D.C., who was not involved in the study. One of the biggest surprises, he suggests, is evidence for the presence of unbound water at depths below 600 kilometers"

I guess it tells you much more than it tells me.

The point is it is not free flowing water. As per the reference they are "small pockets of water that appear at great depths."

What do you mean?
Hugh enormous amounts of water found all over space. As our earth came from the same space, how can you claim its got nothing to do with it??

Scientists Discover The Oldest, Largest Body Of Water In Existence–In Space

Just as an example...

Example is not helpful. This water is in the solar systems and galaxies millions of miles from earth. Yes they are not remotely related to the earth.

This is one of many articles i encountered talking about massive amounts of water including one that suggests that water wwere possibly created in the early stages of our universe.

Water existing in the early stages of the universe would be billions of years ago and not remotely related to the flood.

We need to come back to earth in recent geologic history to understand if there is any evidence of a world flood and the source of the water, None of the proposed sources you reference are not available.

 

[Dell]

Bible scriptures contradict itself...
Bible versions contradict each other...
Christianity contradicts itself...
Christian denominations contradict each other...

Seems strange for a perfect God commanding man everywhere to believe and repent to use that vehicle if salvation from damnation is soooo important.

 

[Dell]

I have been around the world looking at geology including North America, Europe, Israel, India, South America, Central America and China. No evidence of a world or regional flood to fit the Biblical account. The thick weathered and oxidized regolith (weathered rock) that has cover much of the earth below the slopes of the mountains, Great plains, and in the flood plains that formed over millions of years. No evidence of a flood.

Wow I'm jealous... that has to be a rewarding profession. Had I known 30 years ago I would of had interest in earth sciences like I do today I would have changed my major.

 

[PruePhillip]

We need to come back to earth in recent geologic history to understand if there is any evidence of a world flood and the source of the water, None of the proposed sources you reference are not available.

When Genesis said the 'world' was flooded, what did the author think the world was?
When Luke said 'all the world was taxed' during Caesar's day, what did he mean by 'world' ?
When scientists said 'universe' in the 1970's what did they mean?
When scientists say 'universe' today what do they mean?

 

[Subduction Zone]

When Genesis said the 'world' was flooded, what did the author think the world was?
When Luke said 'all the world was taxed' during Caesar's day, what did he mean by 'world' ?
When scientists said 'universe' in the 1970's what did they mean?
When scientists say 'universe' today what do they mean?

The author of Luke, not necessarily Luke, in fact probably not Luke, appeared to be rather confused. His whole nativity myth falls apart when investigated. Arguing that "the whole world" for him would be the Roman Empire does not fly since there never was an empire wide census. In fat the only census that he could have been referring to was a local one in Judea that occurred roughly 6 CE yet if he puts the birth of Jesus at the time of Herod that would be 4 BCE. Worse yet censuses count people where they live,, not where they are from.

 

[PruePhillip]

The author of Luke, not necessarily Luke, in fact probably not Luke, appeared to be rather confused. His whole nativity myth falls apart when investigated. Arguing that "the whole world" for him would be the Roman Empire does not fly since there never was an empire wide census. In fat the only census that he could have been referring to was a local one in Judea that occurred roughly 6 CE yet if he puts the birth of Jesus at the time of Herod that would be 4 BCE. Worse yet censuses count people where they live,, not where they are from.

The "world" meant different things to different cultures.
"World" could mean the land to the horizon, or all of the
known tribes and trading routes, or the empire etc..
Luke knew of other empires other than Rome, in fact
many Jews sheltered within the Parthian empire. But
here clearly "world" just meant the Roman world.

I was taught that the "universe" is everything there is.
Now the universe is just a bubble of something much
larger. Words change - and I believe that the "world"
that was flooded in Noah's day was his world, not ours.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The "world" meant different things to different cultures.
"World" could mean the land to the horizon, or all of the
known tribes and trading routes, or the empire etc..
Luke knew of other empires other than Rome, in fact
many Jews sheltered within the Parthian empire. But
here clearly "world" just meant the Roman world.

I was taught that the "universe" is everything there is.
Now the universe is just a bubble of something much
larger. Words change - and I believe that the "world"
that was flooded in Noah's day was his world, not ours.

You are ignoring the contradictions in the nativity myth in Luke. When was Jesus born? What year?

And having a very limited flood causes all sorts of problems as well. There would be no need of an ark. Noah had close to a hundred year warning. All he had to do was walk away.

 

[PruePhillip]

You are ignoring the contradictions in the nativity myth in Luke. When was Jesus born? What year?

And having a very limited flood causes all sorts of problems as well. There would be no need of an ark. Noah had close to a hundred year warning. All he had to do was walk away.

Walking away wasn't what he was told to do.
What I love about the Gospels is that the four authors did not agree on events. This means there's no collusion, no redaction. These four authors treat the story of Jesus as no different to how historians would treat any historic event.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Walking away wasn't what he was told to do.
What I love about the Gospels is that the four authors did not agree on events. This means there's no collusion, no redaction. These four authors treat the story of Jesus as no different to how historians would treat any historic event.

It does not matter all that much what he was told to do. The flood as told in Genesis would be pointless if local. It would not kill everyone but Noah. The ark, which would have sunk in any real seas would have killed everyone aboard as designed. And by your own beliefs it was superfluous.

And why are you ducking the nativity myth problems?

 

[PruePhillip]

It does not matter all that much what he was told to do. The flood as told in Genesis would be pointless if local. It would not kill everyone but Noah. The ark, which would have sunk in any real seas would have killed everyone aboard as designed. And by your own beliefs it was superfluous.

And why are you ducking the nativity myth problems?

That is not the topic.
Variation in dates for the Gospels is of academic interest. Same too with dating
the conquest of Caanan or the Egyptian chronology. It has little to do with the
message of the Gospels.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is not the topic.
Variation in dates for the Gospels is of academic interest. Same too with the
conquest of Caanan or the issue of Egyptian chronology. It has little to do with
the message of the Gospels.

It has to do with the topic of this thread. Contradictions in the Bible, in case you forgot.

 

[PruePhillip]

You are ignoring the contradictions in the nativity myth in Luke. When was Jesus born? What year?

And having a very limited flood causes all sorts of problems as well. There would be no need of an ark. Noah had close to a hundred year warning. All he had to do was walk away.

Bit hard to argue for contradictions in the Gospels when we don't know
the dates ourselves.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Bit hard to argue for contradictions in the Gospels when we don't know
the dates ourselves.

But we do know. The date of the census of Quirinius is well known. And Herod died roughly ten years before that.