Does the Bible Contradict Itself ?

[nPeace]

The Genesis account of Creation does not remotely fit the science, nor the time line in Genesis.

Noah's Arc and the world flood are historically impossible.

The numbers of Jews and the description described to take place in the exodus do not remotely fit the historical evidence.

Do I just take your word? We could argue back and forth, Yes. No. But we are past that, Where is your data to support what you say?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do I just take your word? We could argue back and forth, Yes. No. But we are past that, Where is your data to support what you say?

Or you could try to learn for once. There is always that possibility. Do you think you can let go of your fear and approach the topic properly?

 

[nPeace]

Once again you described yourself. Last time you supposedly wanted to learn you ended up running away since you could not even ask questions properly. Would you care to try again?

How about the Noah's Ark myth? That one is much easier to understand than evolution. In fact historically we knew that the Earth was hundreds of millions of years old at least long before Darwin and the Beagle.

I haven't seen you make an effort to bite anything. Some dogs just Yelp! Running, tail between legs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I haven't seen you make an effort to bite anything. Some dogs just Yelp! Running, tail between legs.

I don't want to bite. I only want to help. But yes, you do run away quite often. Have you forgotten how you ran away just yesterday? I won't hold that against you.

 

[Neuropteron]

[QUOTE=" do you feel that holding the first-born sons of the Egyptians (from babies and infants to adult sons) accountable for their parents' decisions to continue to disobey God, and then going about the business of killing them all for their parents' transgressions accurately represents the disposition and moral authority of God? "[/QUOTE]

Your question is a valid one as well as being a complex one. It is related to God's vindication and sovereignty as ultimate and highest judge.
Nonetheless, a person desirous to judge God would at the very least have to know all of the facts sourrounding the case.
However, your disagreement with God's actions in no way affects the issue of Bible contradiction.

[/QUOTE]
And if that is the case, then I truly feel that there can be no sufficient reason given to follow God given the atrocities against mankind that He has committed. And this renders any contradictions to be found in The Bible an entirely moot point.[/QUOTE]

It seems you are referring to "the God of this system of things"(2Cor4:4)
Because of the atrocties he committed against mankind , Jesus said : "the ruler of this world will be cast out". I agree, we would not want to follow him.
The God that inspired the Bible however, is differentuated by the designationg (name) JHVH.

 

[Skwim]

You just showed me something new here.

1
I believe, but I am not sure (I will research it), perhaps different manuscripts may have been used by translators, and one or more of those manuscripts may have contained a writing error in the age.
Various translations differ here. Some say 22. Some say 42.
The obvious correction is 22.

Not that it invalidates the contradiction, but why is 22 correct and not 42?

2
The name Cainan appears in genealogical lists in present copies of the Greek Septuagint, such as the Alexandrine Manuscript of the fifth century C.E. (Ge 10:24; 11:12, 13; 1Ch 1:18 but not 1Ch 1:24), although it is not found in extant Hebrew manuscripts of the Hebrew Scriptures. The name Cainan is also missing at Luke 3:36 in two Bible manuscripts (Papyrus Bodmer 14, 15, of c. 200 C.E.; Codex Bezae, of the fifth century C.E.). This omission is in harmony with the Masoretic text at Genesis 10:24; 11:12, 15; and 1 Chronicles 1:18, according to which Shelah, not Cainan, is the son of Arpachshad.
Most scholars take this to be a copyist’s error. In the Hebrew Scriptures, “Cainan” is not found in this relative position in the genealogical listings in the Hebrew or the Samaritan texts, nor is it in any of the Targums or versions except the Greek Septuagint. And it does not seem that it was even in the earlier copies of the Septuagint, because Josephus, who usually follows the Septuagint, lists Seles (Shelah) next as the son of Arphaxades (Arpachshad). (Jewish Antiquities, I, 146 [vi, 4]) Early writers Irenaeus, Africanus, Eusebius, and Jerome rejected the second “Cainan” in copies of Luke’s account as an interpolation.

But the contradiction still stands. Shelah/sala cannot be the son of both Cainan and Arpachshad.

3
Were they not two animals, and Mathew gave more detail.
I didn't research it, What a small insignificant cherry to pick at.

Moving the goal posts so one can say it isn't a BIG contradiction, doesn't mean it's no longer a contradiction.

4
Many scholars think that the original reading of 2 Samuel 21:19 corresponded to 1 Chronicles 20:5, the differences in the two texts having arisen through scribal error.

So what? It's still a contradiction.

5
It's already admitted that there are some copying errors - small insignificant cherries. How does that affect the overwhelming evidence that it is authentic though - big juicy delicious cherries?

Well, for one thing, it throws doubt on everything written in the Bible, insignificant and significant items alike---to deny the possibility that significant items are immune from error is a simpleminded self-delusion. Take the slaying of Goliath. Both versions of his slayer cannot be correct, one has to be wrong. The same can be said of the age of Ahaziah when he began to reign, One of them has to be wrong. And what if the correct version, whichever it is, never appeared in the Bible? People would unhesitatingly and firmly believe the wrong age to be correct. What all this implies is that even the important stuff may include mistakes---no one has ever declared that the only errors in the Bible are small ones---so it's not out of the realm of possibility that Jesus was not born of a virgin, but of a non-virgin. Or that in John 14:6 instead of saying “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me," which happened to be a mistake, Jesus actually said “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except me." The difference of a single word could make a huge difference in Christian theology. So, although one may firmly believe that verse X is correct, and base one's life on it, there is still the possibility that it's wrong.

So although a contradiction may seem small recall what is said in 2 Timothy 3:16 : All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. And Proverbs 30:5-6 "Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar." So unless you believe god was "talking" just to hear himself talk, every word was included because it was important, and couldn't be left out. Therefore I doubt any of the contradictions in the Bible amount to "small insignificant cherries." At least not in god's eyes.

.

 

[PruePhillip]

No, only children can take the Noah's ark story seriously.

And the King David story?
And life coming out of the sea story?
I ought to compile a list of so-called "stories" that are now established history of the bible age.

 

[PruePhillip]

Once again you described yourself. Last time you supposedly wanted to learn you ended up running away since you could not even ask questions properly. Would you care to try again?

How about the Noah's Ark myth? That one is much easier to understand than evolution. In fact historically we knew that the Earth was hundreds of millions of years old at least long before Darwin and the Beagle.

Yes, the scientific understanding of the early earth accords broadly with the sequence of the Genesis account.
We cannot say there was or wasn't a Noah's ark - that's not science. We can say that Noah's "world" was a lot smaller than what we call the "world" today. That's history.

 

[PruePhillip]

The Genesis account of Creation does not remotely fit the science, nor the time line in Genesis.

Noah's Arc and the world flood are historically impossible.

The numbers of Jews and the description described to take place in the exodus do not remotely fit the historical evidence.

I think you are wrong in all of the vague accounts you note.
The world of Noah was not the world we know today. The term 'world' has mutated over the generations.
Most of the years of the Exodus were not spent in the "desert" but, if I recall, spent in one place (two and fro) called Kadesh. Not sure what your problem with this account is.
What we are find is that populations in the Bronze Age are remarkably higher than first thought. Egypt in particularly was much larger as seen from satellite radar images.

It's of interest. The bible says the Jews would remain a tiny people in a tiny land. They numbered around five million at the time of Jesus. There were sixty million Chinese back then. Today there's about 1.4 billion Chinese and about the same number of Jews.

Yes, the Jews, God's people. Few in number. Exiled into all the world. Hated of the world. A blessing to the world. Brought out of the nations today and given back their land, culture, language and religion. What a fantastic, historic, story.

 

[PruePhillip]

Thank you. I think you meant longer than 20 years though. Right?

Not sure when the word "universe" stopped meaning "everything in the natural world" to "one small bubble of space-time."
But certainly, the redefining of the word is quite recent.
The world got a lot bigger from the Bronze or Hunter Gatherer societies. If I recall, this even surprised Columbus when he found he hadn't reached India at all, but a continent in between.

 

[shunyadragon]

Do I just take your word? We could argue back and forth, Yes. No. But we are past that, Where is your data to support what you say?

The Creation narrative describes a history of the world in thousands of years and the objective verifiable evidence describes a universe, earth, and the evolution of life billions of years old, and the evolution of humanity millions of years old.

The geologic evidence demonstrates no Biblical flood ever occurred The Ark is an impossible construction.

See: The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark

Exodus: There is evidence of Hebrew slaves in Egypt, and some smaller scale migration likely took place in the 18th and/or 13th century BCE, but . . .

From: The Exodus - Wikipedia
"The exodus is the founding myth of the Israelites.[1][a] Spread over the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, it tells of the enslavement that befell the children of Israel in Egypt, their liberation through the hand of Yahwehand the revelations at Sinai, and their wanderings in the wilderness up to borders of Canaan, the land their God has given them.[2] Its message is that Israel was delivered from slavery by Yahweh and therefore belongs to him through the Mosaic covenant, the terms of which are that Yahweh will protect his chosen people for all time, so long as they will keep his laws and worship only him.[1][3] The narrative and its laws remain central to Judaism, recounted daily in Jewish prayers and celebrated in festivals such as Passover, as well as serving as an inspiration and model for non-Jewish groups from early Protestants fleeing persecution in Europe to African-Americans striving for freedom and civil rights.[4]

The traditions behind the exodus story can be traced in the writings of the 8th century BCE prophets, beyond which their history is obscured by centuries of transmission.[5][6] No historical basis for the biblical exodus story exists;[7][8] instead, archaeology suggests a native Canaanite origin for ancient Israel."

The Bible is set in history, therefore it will contain historical people and events, but that does not make it accurate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And the King David story?
And life coming out of the sea story?
I ought to compile a list of so-called "stories" that are now established history of the bible age.

The King David story is probably a mixture of reality and myth. A good modern example would be Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter. The Bible does a slow transition from pure myth to history.

And the life from the sea example is a case of reinterpretation after the fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, the scientific understanding of the early earth accords broadly with the sequence of the Genesis account.
We cannot say there was or wasn't a Noah's ark - that's not science. We can say that Noah's "world" was a lot smaller than what we call the "world" today. That's history.

Nope,that is pure reinterpretation on your accont.

And of course we can say there was no Noah's Ark. That is the application of science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, the scientific understanding of the early earth accords broadly with the sequence of the Genesis account.
We cannot say there was or wasn't a Noah's ark - that's not science. We can say that Noah's "world" was a lot smaller than what we call the "world" today. That's history.

Nope. Check your history. Others knew the Earth to be much larger. Columbus's error was why the Italians rejected his funding and he had to shop the idea elsewhere. He also thought that he had reached his destination. He had nowhere near the supplies to make the actual trip.

 

[shunyadragon]

I think you are wrong in all of the vague accounts you note.
The world of Noah was not the world we know today. The term 'world' has mutated over the generations.
Most of the years of the Exodus were not spent in the "desert" but, if I recall, spent in one place (two and fro) called Kadesh. Not sure what your problem with this account is.
What we are find is that populations in the Bronze Age are remarkably higher than first thought. Egypt in particularly was much larger as seen from satellite radar images.

It's of interest. The bible says the Jews would remain a tiny people in a tiny land. They numbered around five million at the time of Jesus. There were sixty million Chinese back then. Today there's about 1.4 billion Chinese and about the same number of Jews.

Yes, the Jews, God's people. Few in number. Exiled into all the world. Hated of the world. A blessing to the world. Brought out of the nations today and given back their land, culture, language and religion. What a fantastic, historic, story.

You missed the reason for my post to the assertion that the Bible is historically and scientifically accurate. The fact is the Bible is not. If you wish to offer alternate interpretations to try and make it fit you need to offer better explanations.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You mean like the terribly failed Tyre prophecy.

I've found multiple Tyre prophecies in the Bible. Sounds like some kind of vague hand-waving you're doing here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've found multiple Tyre prophecies in the Bible. Sounds like some kind of vague hand-waving you're doing here.

There is only one that is commonly called "the Tye prophecy". And no, no handwaving used at all. Do you even u Der stand the terms you abuse?

 

[metis]

People wrote the books of the Bible, people are not perfect, therefore the Bible is not perfect. And, since we are not perfect, even understanding perfection is out of our realm.

OTOH, my Oxford Desk Dictionary is not perfect, and yet I frequently use it much like I use the Bible and other sources.

 

[shunyadragon]

I've found multiple Tyre prophecies in the Bible. Sounds like some kind of vague hand-waving you're doing here.

With enough interpretations of a multiple number of prophecies anything can be found to be true. Well known tactic of fortune tellers. There is big money in this tactic, and anyone gullible enough to want to believe can be fooled.

Nonetheless, Tyre exists and always has even though part of old city is under water, The main ancient part of the city with the temple and walls were never was under water.

 

[nPeace]

Not that it invalidates the contradiction, but why is 22 correct and not 42?


But the contradiction still stands. Shelah/sala cannot be the son of both Cainan and Arpachshad.


Moving the goal posts so one can say it isn't a BIG contradiction, doesn't mean it's no longer a contradiction.


So what? It's still a contradiction.


Well, for one thing, it throws doubt on everything written in the Bible, insignificant and significant items alike---to deny the possibility that significant items are immune from error is a simpleminded self-delusion. Take the slaying of Goliath. Both versions of his slayer cannot be correct, one has to be wrong. The same can be said of the age of Ahaziah when he began to reign, One of them has to be wrong. And what if the correct version, whichever it is, never appeared in the Bible? People would unhesitatingly and firmly believe the wrong age to be correct. What all this implies is that even the important stuff may include mistakes---no one has ever declared that the only errors in the Bible are small ones---so it's not out of the realm of possibility that Jesus was not born of a virgin, but of a non-virgin. Or that in John 14:6 instead of saying “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me," which happened to be a mistake, Jesus actually said “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except me." The difference of a single word could make a huge difference in Christian theology. So, although one may firmly believe that verse X is correct, and base one's life on it, there is still the possibility that it's wrong.

So although a contradiction may seem small recall what is said in 2 Timothy 3:16 : All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. And Proverbs 30:5-6 "Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar." So unless you believe god was "talking" just to hear himself talk, every word was included because it was important, and couldn't be left out. Therefore I doubt any of the contradictions in the Bible amount to "small insignificant cherries." At least not in god's eyes.

.

So you received a copy of an important document, and the copyist spelled your name wrong, just got your name wrong. Throw away the document. It's no use anymore.

A reasonable person knows that if a copyist error occurs, it is minor. It does not entirely change the document.
There is an entire account of how Goliath met his fate. A copying error does not get an entire account wrong.

That's not what a copyist error is.

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.

Why do you doubt the Bible? Let's be honest.
Is it because of copyist errors, and presumed contradictions - for which a good example was used to show that those conclusion usually wrong, come from a critic and skeptic that is against God, the Bible, or Christianity, or all three, or is there another reason?