Contradictions In The Bible?

TheDoctor394
TheDoctor394: The Bible has long been accused of having contradictions, and I know many of its critics today revel in pointing some of them out. Some of the arguments are quite reasonable, while others are more on the outlandish side.

I like to look at these sometimes, as I find it can be interesting and helpful to look deeper into Biblical passages in this way.

So I thought I'd ask if anyone sees particular things in the Bible they see as contradictions, and why you might think so, etc.
6 years ago Report
2
Zanjan
Zanjan: Not contradictions, just things that look like errors. For example:

John Ch 19, verse 25
"Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene."

Why would anyone name both their daughters Mary?


6 years ago Report
0
TheDoctor394
TheDoctor394: That's an interesting one, and I'd never really looked at it that way before.

I think it would be safe to say that, while Mary the wife of Cleophas could be Jesus' aunt, it would make more sense that she is a different person. In other words, there are four women mentioned here - Jesus' mother Mary and her sister and Mary the wife of Cleophas and Mary Magdalene.

(Edited by TheDoctor394)
6 years ago Report
0
chronology
(Post deleted by chronology 6 years ago)
TheDoctor394
TheDoctor394: Alright, there are several here. :-) I'll get back about them soon.
6 years ago Report
0
chronology
chronology: I will save you trouble and delete my list. Wonder when Zan changed her profile and name
6 years ago Report
0
TheDoctor394
TheDoctor394: Oh. Okay... I was just going to look into a few now.
She's changed stuff?
6 years ago Report
0
TheDoctor394
TheDoctor394: I'll reply to one of the issues I remember that was listed anyway, and it's one of the most popular accusations of contradictions found in the Bible, that of Judas Iscariot's death.

Matthew 27 tells us that, in sorrow for his betrayal of Jesus, Judas went and hanged himself. But Acts 1 states that "he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out."

The general view is that one describes Judas' act of suicide, and the other the ultimate result. In short, he hanged himself in Potter's Field, and his body hung there, decomposing, until the rope finally broke and his body was in such a shape that it just broke open upon falling.

Now, these are conclusions that can't be proven, of course. But such balancing of the information we have can add up. They're certainly possible, so it is very reasonable to conclude that this is why we have the two different references to Judas' death in Matthew and Acts. They balance each other out.
6 years ago Report
0
Crash
Crash: Or it's just another example of christians pushing / leading one particular narrative where they want it to go. Simply because if the bible WERE to be proven in contradiction ...it would no longer be the inerrant "word of god." Right?
6 years ago Report
1
TheDoctor394
TheDoctor394: Quite right. So we need to consider each accusation. And if there is a possible solution (let alone an obvious, certain one), then we cannot say for sure it is a contradiction.
6 years ago Report
0
Crash
Crash: Which always gives the christians a convenient out. I simply fall back to my original premise I posed to you a while back. If the bible is the inerrant word of god...it's not open to interpretation. If the bible IS open to interpretation ...it's not inerrant. This is simply how one plays tennis without the net. Christians insist on having it both ways, which is disingenuous and very transparent when it comes to their beliefs.
6 years ago Report
0
TheDoctor394
TheDoctor394: Well, the fact is everything is open to interpretation, since interpreting means drawing an understanding from something. Everything we read, we interpret. We're interpreting each other now. So, of course, whether the Bible is the inerrant Word of God or not, it's open to interpretation, since, no matter what we believe, when reading it, we gain an understanding, rightly or wrongly, of what it means. That is interpretation.
6 years ago Report
0
Crash
Crash: That's interpretation at it's most BASE sense. But I think you know better than that. I think you knew/know what I mean when I say..."open to interpretation." That is simply a nice deflection you are making at the very nature of the word interpretation so as to take to focus off of the true discussion. Dangerously close to a straw man there doc.

If i were to say ..."The sky is a wonderful blue today." Vs. "The sky is a wonderful shade of blue today."

Yes both statements are technically open to interpretation. However one is absolutely on it's base as far as interpreting language itself ....while the other is obviously open to a more in depth interpretation.

Your previous post was nothing more than a tactic to muddy the waters on that point. As I said....very transparent.
(Edited by Crash)
6 years ago Report
0
TheDoctor394
TheDoctor394: *sigh* Crash, if you're going to do all this "oh, I know the tricks you're trying to play" stuff, then what's the point? Truly, I wasn't trying to deflect anything. I wasn't trying to change any focus.

The fact is, I have spoken with people who really do have a misunderstanding of what the word "interpret" means, having a view that if it is clear, then we are not interpreting, we're just "saying what it says", and that we only interpret if what we see is not necessarily clear. This is all nonsense, and I didn't know if you were one of them or not. I was simply trying to make things clear on how the particular word is understood. That's all. Nothing sneaky. No tricks.

So we agree on the basic understanding of the word, but what you're saying is that the Bible has ambiguous passages that could be easily open to different interpretations? That's my question now. Again, please remember I am not trying to play any tricks or defer anything. I like to think things through systematically, carefully and with clarity, attempting to understand where the other person is coming from. Some might find that boring or tedious, but that's the way I am. I am a patient, methodical person who sees this as the best way to avoid misunderstandings.
(Edited by TheDoctor394)
6 years ago Report
0
Crash
Crash: Well....then it's a very simple question then doc. Do you believe the bible is open to interpretation ...or don't you? I'm not talking about the nature of words...or their usages. I'm talking about specific scriptures, passages...chapters...books whatever. The very nature of their content and the condoned laws and prescripts therein. Is any of that open to interpretation or isn't it?
(Edited by Crash)
6 years ago Report
0
TheDoctor394
TheDoctor394: If you're asking if there are possibly different interpretations of certain passages of the Bible, then certainly there are. Some parts are indeed quite ambiguous, But even the ones that you and I might see as very clear, might seem as confusing to someone who has a very different cultural upbringing from us. For instance, we both know what a road is, but someone who has lived on a remote island all their life could come across such a reference and have no idea.

The very nature of writing is that, when we read, we all bring our own experiences and knowledge, and with those factors, when we read, we come to our own understandings, whether they be right or wrong. This is true whether we read religious literature, the newspaper or someone's biography.

There are some parts of the Bible that are one hundred percent clear, while there are others which have been debated for centuries. This, of course, has brought problems, and has been a main reason for the different denominations within Christianity.

But it does not in itself necessarily mean the Bible is not the Word of God, and I don't see how it would. We need to study it, study its history, its culture, its background and then try to come up with as honest an understanding as possible. Naturally, we have to overcome biases. The Christian is sure it is the Word of God, so we have to try and not let that blind us when we're confronted with a difficulty. Conversely, the savage critic can't wait to find fault with the Bible in any way they can, so they need to overcome that bias and try to be as fair as possible.

It's certainly not always easy, and I've caught myself letting my biases get the better of me more than once. But it is the best way to go about study of the Biblical scriptures.



(Edited by TheDoctor394)
6 years ago Report
0
Zanjan
Zanjan: Well, I'm here and I didn't change my profile or name - don't know what that was all about unless it was a reference to your "edit", Doc. For some reason, everybody hates editing but remember this: what you type stays on here forever - who wants to look like they can't spell?
6 years ago Report
0
Zanjan
Zanjan: Doc: "So, of course, whether the Bible is the inerrant Word of God or not, it's open to interpretation, since, no matter what we believe, when reading it, we gain an understanding, rightly or wrongly, of what it means. That is interpretation. "

While you're correct, take that one step further - pushing one's own 'interpretation' on others. This has been the big MISTAKE of those who call themselves religious. If people really believed the Bible was the inerrant Word of God, they wouldn't do that. Only the ignorant are unable to distinguish the Word of God from those written by men.

For example, Scholars say the author of the Book of John was anonymous. That so? Then why the heck is it in scriptures? Would the Word of God be anonymous?? Ergo, I think it doesn't make one lick of sense to form a truth around each word.
(Edited by Zanjan)
6 years ago Report
0
chronology
chronology: Interesting Zan. Gays insist the Bible should be rewritten to prevent the persecution of the loved ones in their community.
6 years ago Report
0
Zanjan
Zanjan: As for the death of Judas. Have you taken a forensic approach to that statement? How can a hanging body **fall headlong**? Did he hang himself upside down?

Seems to be an error in the sentence, and it does appear to be gratuitously graphic.

Traditionally, we know that the Jews weren't the type to leave dead bodies to rot - that just wasn't in their culture. Same for Christians. The Book says he was buried, presumably by the Priests, who were aware of his repentance. So, I can only think this statement is not to be taken literally, being a figure of speech.
(Edited by Zanjan)
6 years ago Report
0
Zanjan
Zanjan: Chron, that wouldn't surprise me. People will use words any way they want to meet their own ends. That's disrespect. History shows that one can't legislate a pure heart, neither can anyone's words make a pure heart in someone else.

It takes a pure heart to understand and apply the spirit of the truth the way it was intended. This was Christ's big beef with the Jews - they held to the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law. Round and round again we go.

I don't think it detracts from anyone's faith to admit their scriptures have errors in places because the Bible was never authenticated. The actual Word of God - that is, what the Prophets uttered has remained mostly intact.

We know that because we can verify a spiritual truth by using any of the Abrahmic religions to do it. Spiritual truths never change - all of the religions will agree on those points, and that's what we're after. God hasn't wasted His time making historical accounts - He leaves that to humans.
6 years ago Report
0
chronology
chronology: I don't know Zan. It is the same with illegitimate people. Most people don't realise that children of divorced and remarried people are in fact illegitimate as far as the church is concerned. Even tho they were born to a married couple, if one of their parents had been divorced they are in fact b'stards.

What I thought weired when I read about this Zan is that some people have been declared illegitimate even tho their parents were properly and legally married. It seems if their parents got a 'full' devorce, then they were never concidered married in the first place and their children are then declared illegitimate.

After reading all that, all I could say is there is no logic in this at all. Gays would probably insist those rules be changed as well.
6 years ago Report
0
TheDoctor394
TheDoctor394: It is very, very true that Christians can push their own wrong interpretation (eisegeses - pushing your personal views into a text) onto others. Just like non-Christians can. That can happen with any literature. It's not necessarily the fault of the literature itself, and certainly such a danger does not invalidate the Bible in any way, otherwise we'd have to dismiss all reading material in existence.

In regards to Judas, I've actually heard the argument before that "headlong" would have to mean that he hanged himself upside down, and I admit I felt such reasoning rather bewildering then, as I do now. I've always thought of "headlong" as just meaning falling, not necessarily the head going first. Indeed, we can talk about "rushing headlong" into something, without having to mean that our head is going before everything else. I don't see a problem there.

I do take your point about the Jews maybe not leaving bodies to rot, but since this was Judas' own field he had bought, maybe it was sometime before anyone went there and found his body.

This is all speculation, I know. There is simply a lot of information about so many things Bible-related that we're not given. And this can lead to a danger on two counts. The Christian can desperately try to make things fit so they don't have to lose their conviction that the Bible is the Word of God, and the critic can fold their arms and refuse to speculate about anything so they don't have to lose some of their ammunition about the Bible being unreliable. We have to try and push aside these biases and be reasonable in our study of the Biblical books.

And my view is that, while we cannot know for sure what happened with Judas' death, it is certainly more than possible that how the death of Judas has been explained is quite legitimate.
6 years ago Report
0
Crash
Crash: I would concede that the bible .."as a history book" could be open to interpretation. Such as the places, names, dates, times...people involved ect. I could honestly concede that. However... I cannot concede the bible "as a divine command / revelation from god." to be open to the same, if any interpretation.

Did the flood actually happen....you have many christians in camp A. that say absolutely . Equal amount of christians in camp B. saying...No ..it is merely allegory. It can't be both.

The story of the flood is presented in a way as to not leave anything..."open to interpretation." It's stated as a historical fact in the bible. Yet a LOT of chrisitans don't believe it actually happened for the simple fact it's super unbelievable.

So which is it folks? It's presented as a historical fact....so it shouldn't be open to interpretation. It's presented as something "God made happen." So presented as a supernatural story and proof/evidence of god's divinity. So , shouldn't be open to interpretation. Yet there are those that believe it's allegorical.

If this is something that is presented in the bible as something that "GOD DID....MADE HAPPEN." Then that would fall under my second premise If it speaks of "divine cause" or to a supernatural "divine nature"...how then is it open to interpretation.

That would seem to me that us lowly humans are presuming the mind of god....rather than simply reading the words and taking them at face value as to what your god did/wanted.

This would also seem to me ....yet another out christians leave themselves to have it both ways. To push the narrative to where they want it....rather than following the evidence to where it leads.
6 years ago Report
0
TheDoctor394
TheDoctor394: With such an issue, this requires further study on literary devices of the time, and also trying to understand such things as the perspectives of the Biblical writers.

One of the most important parts of any hermeneutical study is to focus on the writer, his/her culture, to whom they're writing and why. This has become more and more of an issue in the understanding of the creation account. In regards to that, such books as Denis O. Lamoureux's "I Love Jesus And I Accept Evolution" delves deeply into historical literary devices, and how they should be taken into account when trying to understand the first few chapters of Genesis.

It's similar in regards to the flood. For some time, my view has been that there was a large, destructive flood at some point in history, but it didn't cover the whole world. Rather, it covered the world as the writer understood it, bearing in mind he did not have a globe with him, or the Internet or any newspaper telling him about different parts of the world. He wrote from his own perspective.

So we can say it is historical fact, but what did actually happen? We can not simply look at it and just view it from our own twenty-first century mindset. We need to go back centuries to about the time when it was written, and try to gain an accurate understanding that way.

I don't see how seeing the Bible as the Word of God suddenly means we cannot do anything like this. How does that add up? Christians believe the Bible is the Word of God in the words of men. We believe He used human beings, our ways of talking, thinking and writing, to communicate. So, naturally, we try to understand what was written using our ways of talking, thinking and writing.

To think otherwise, to me, changes the rules of interpretation. "As historical facts, we can do that, but as the Word of God, we can't. We just have to look at it plainly and that's that." This is very inconsistent, and really doesn't make much sense at all.
6 years ago Report
0
Zanjan
Zanjan: Chron, Christ set the rules for marriage **for the Christians**, not for anybody else. He was correcting the problem of the proliferation of trivial divorce amongst the Jews. They could have several wives but didn't take the institution of marriage seriously enough.

The religious needed to learn the meaning of the sanctity of marriage - you don't simply throw away your spouse when displeased with them, they get sick, or you find some cute young thing you like better. Teaching this lesson may sound harsh but they wouldn't have learned how to make a marriage work if they hadn't tried to practice it.

It stands to reason that they'd choose a person to marry who was also willing to uphold that law. God always gives an out - with separation, the one spouse could live alone or, they could never remarry. Not hard to do when one is older. More difficult during the crazy hormonal years, but entirely possible.
6 years ago Report
0
Page: 1234