PDA

View Full Version : The Bible Contradiction thread (please help explain)



Joe King
Dec 7th 2007, 05:28 AM
Mods, if you could please pin this thread so we can put up things that we think are confusing or that others bring to our attention and use to disbelieve the word.

What is the explanation for the following?:

In Genesis 1:24-27 it says that God created the beasts and birds and then man.

In Genesis 2:18-21,it says God created man then created the beasts and brought them to him to see what he would name them and if they would be a partner.

Please help.

matthew94
Dec 7th 2007, 05:41 AM
In Genesis 2, it doesn't say the beasts were formed AFTER man.


18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." 19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air.

The helper (Eve) was made after man (Adam). The beasts had already been formed. Some translations use the present tense, but Genesis 2 doesn't pretend to be sequential like Genesis 1. Genesis 1 is a very sequential account of creation. Genesis 2 is more from Adam's perspective.

th1bill
Dec 7th 2007, 06:14 AM
Neighbor, Matthew is correct and there is no conflict what-so-ever, just two different ways of telling the story.

jeffreys
Dec 7th 2007, 02:43 PM
Joe - I concur with what these guys already said.

When we read a list of things in the Bible, it's not necessarily a chronological list. Our western mind-set kind of automatically reads that into lists.

Isaac-Saxon
Dec 7th 2007, 03:11 PM
There is no conflict I agree with both post on this. The Bible is the HIStory of the lineage which Christ would come through. When God took a rib (curve) from Adam to form Eve this "could" have been the double helix curve (DNA) just a thought.

Joe King
Dec 7th 2007, 03:54 PM
Joe - I concur with what these guys already said.

When we read a list of things in the Bible, it's not necessarily a chronological list. Our western mind-set kind of automatically reads that into lists.

I belive and havent wavered at all. It is just frustrating that people will look to use any part of the word to disbelieve instead of believing.

jeffreys
Dec 7th 2007, 03:57 PM
I belive and havent wavered at all. It is just frustrating that people will look to use any part of the word to disbelieve instead of believing.

You're absolutely right!

Somebody can easily take one verse here, half of another verse there, and make all kinds of weird doctrines - or read all kinds of contradictions into the Bible. And you're right, it is very frustrating.

Wintermute
Dec 7th 2007, 04:34 PM
Yep, as Peter said referring to Paul's writing and the rest of scripture.
2 Peter 3:16 ...as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

Alaska
Dec 7th 2007, 06:29 PM
There is no conflict I agree with both post on this. The Bible is the HIStory of the lineage which Christ would come through. When God took a rib (curve) from Adam to form Eve this "could" have been the double helix curve (DNA) just a thought.


The rib is the only bone in the human body that can grow back. That is an interesting bit of info when thinking about how the woman was made. Literally from his rib just like He said. Also why they were literally one flesh, setting the pattern of all marriages after, which wives, though not literally made from their husbands' ribs', possess the same status as if they were. One flesh until death.
Someone help me out here on the plural possessiveness of husbands' ribs' or whatever.

th1bill
Dec 7th 2007, 08:23 PM
The rib is the only bone in the human body that can grow back. That is an interesting bit of info when thinking about how the woman was made. Literally from his rib just like He said. Also why they were literally one flesh, setting the pattern of all marriages after, which wives, though not literally made from their husbands' ribs', possess the same status as if they were. One flesh until death.
Someone help me out here on the plural possessiveness of husbands' ribs' or whatever.
Joe,
.. Over sixteen years ago I was not a Christian and the fact that people would pull a sentence, sometimes a partial sentence out of context to build a complete doctrine or a reason to discount the Bible just floored me. Since becoming a convert and a solid, do or die, believer it often leaves me speechless that people can do this and believe they are correct.
.. They will never change and the very best we can do in cases of this type is to follow the advice of our LORD. We need to kick the dust loose and move to the next person. It is just pointless to waste our time on he that just will not hear when there are so very many that are just dying to receive the truth.
.. Move on and be obediant and you will rejoice over the ones that listen and receive.

Alaska
Dec 8th 2007, 08:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alaska http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1464386#post1464386)
The rib is the only bone in the human body that can grow back. That is an interesting bit of info when thinking about how the woman was made. Literally from his rib just like He said. Also why they were literally one flesh, setting the pattern of all marriages after, which wives, though not literally made from their husbands' ribs', possess the same status as if they were. One flesh until death.
Someone help me out here on the plural possessiveness of husbands' ribs' or whatever.

Joe,
.. Over sixteen years ago I was not a Christian and the fact that people would pull a sentence, sometimes a partial sentence out of context to build a complete doctrine or a reason to discount the Bible just floored me. Since becoming a convert and a solid, do or die, believer it often leaves me speechless that people can do this and believe they are correct.
.. They will never change and the very best we can do in cases of this type is to follow the advice of our LORD. We need to kick the dust loose and move to the next person. It is just pointless to waste our time on he that just will not hear when there are so very many that are just dying to receive the truth.
.. Move on and be obediant and you will rejoice over the ones that listen and receive.


How's it going Bill.
I guess I'm a little thick in the head (dik op my kop?). Please help me out here. I don't understand if you are disagreeing with me about the rib thing or what. I must have missed something in the posts. Since you quoted what I wrote, am I an example of someone against whom the dust of others' shoes should be shaken?

(I'm still looking for someone to explain the plural possessiveness thing of husbands' ribs'.)

Alaska
Dec 8th 2007, 09:26 PM
These are days “to God,” as the indigenous races (Aborigine and native Indians) represent “sixth day” creations, but Adam is a ‘seventh day man.’ Surely you realize science says this creation has been around for 13 to 14 billion years


Jesus happens to disagree since he said that Adam was made in the beginning. He preached a childlike faith and he exhibited the same in his acceptance of the literalness of Gen. Well of course he did because the Word, which is who he is, was there!

You are mixing the faith of science "science says" which things cannot be proven except with "science says", with the words of the Scriptures and have attempted to make a plausible compromise. It doesn't work. Either one or the other. Either lukewarm or hot.
What He says is simply the truth. Beware of the faith of what "science says".
The Word of God versus the word of "science".

See, that Devil is trying to take over again, not as a serpent in the garden this time, but as a replacer of God's word with his own word, under the guise of "science".

Alaska
Dec 9th 2007, 07:14 PM
Alaska >> See, that Devil is trying to take over again, not as a serpent in the garden this time, but as a replacer of God's word with his own word, under the guise of "science".

Your finger pointing at me finds those three crooked witnesses pointing straight back at Alaska who is supposed to be attacking ‘my arguments’ with supported statements with some basis in reality. God’s Word and Science teach the very same things that this universe (like God) is very old indeed from the perspectives of mere men.

I was speaking in context of the religion of Science as a whole that replaces God's word with their own.


God’s Word and Science teach the very same things that this universe (like God) is very old indeed from the perspectives of mere men.


OK, lets say some scientists got on the scene ten minutes after Adam had gotten his wife after all the animals were named on day 6.
Would they not suppose that he was much more than just about a day old?
Or do you suppose that Adam was not a literal individual and that a childlike faith of accepting him as such is not scientific?
It is of faith but it is not scientific.

Likewise, as Adam would be in reality only a fraction of the age he appeared to be, so the universe can be seen as much older than what the true reality of the scriptures declare.
Again it is of faith and yet it is not scientific.

Do you think God set the stars far away to be seen on earth, yet the same One who had power to speak them into existence did not have the power to cause their light to appear instantly on the earth?
To explain away the supernatural powers and acts of God because the laws of science cannot explain them is NOT of faith.



Alaska’s Reply >> Jesus happens to disagree since he said that Adam was made in the beginning.

Please forgive, but yet again Alaska has offered a reply in my direction (Post #13) without supporting one statement using Scripture. “Adam” is mentioned exactly once in the Four Gospels (Luke 3:38) as the “son of God.” So where is Jesus saying anything about Adam? The terms “Adam” and “beginning” appear together in no verse of Scripture. NASB.


Is not Jesus referring to Adam in:
Mark 10:
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

Like I said, Jesus said that Adam was made in the beginning. The above verses are a reference to:

Gen. 2:
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Here's an interesting bit of good science: the rib is the only bone in the human body that can repeatedly be removed and it will grow back. Makes you wonder about the literalness of Gen. 2 doesn't it?

punk
Dec 9th 2007, 11:50 PM
Any text worth anything has contradictions in it.

The contradictions are what we can grab hold of.

A text without contradictions is too smooth a thing. It doesn't require any thinking. It doesn't permit the reader to engage it.

Rejoice in the contradictions.

A foolish consistency is the bugbear of small minds.

th1bill
Dec 10th 2007, 05:23 AM
How's it going Bill.
I guess I'm a little thick in the head (dik op my kop?). Please help me out here. I don't understand if you are disagreeing with me about the rib thing or what. I must have missed something in the posts. Since you quoted what I wrote, am I an example of someone against whom the dust of others' shoes should be shaken?

(I'm still looking for someone to explain the plural possessiveness thing of husbands' ribs'.)
Alaska,
I owe you an appoligy. What we have here is a case of senility. I meant to click the reply button, i did, didn't I? Anyway, the comment was for the OP.

Just get up from your 'puter and get a broom handle and put the US mao on the door. Then take the broom handle and smack east Texas real hard, I'll feel it. :giveup:

Alaska
Dec 10th 2007, 05:34 AM
Hey Bill, I just came out to Oregon from west Texas. Believe me, you got it better down there than here with the weather. You folks in the south are sorta spoilt when it comes to real cold weather. Sometimes I wish I was back in Texas where its nicer.
Have a great day.

Jewunit
Dec 10th 2007, 07:43 PM
To say that the bible contridicts itself once is to say that it's all bologne bc while it may be confussing it needs to be broken down before we say that it contridicted itself for an example what if the bible said that in Luke that a man saw 4 men get on a ship and in Mark it says that on the exact same ship there were 9 men how can this be? Simple people have diffrent viewpoints but the bible was written by God through man so God wouldn't have contridicted himself.

A Seeker
Dec 10th 2007, 08:35 PM
This a subject close to my heart. I've spent many an hour agonising over "contradictions"

I'm going to try very hard to make this post inoffensive but i fear i will still be slow roasted for heresy (again):(

I think this is an outgrowth of the "literal interpretation" school of docterine. This in turn has led to a fascination with what the book says on a pragmatic level.

The six day creation, the global flood, the whale with a gippy tummy.

Scruffy kid made a particularly supurb point on the recent jonah and the whale thread which changed the way i have viewed scripture. To use that as an example, what was god trying to teach us with that story. Was it marine biology or something else?

How important is it that we agree on the name of Jesus great grandad or the colour of the robe they dressed him in or whether a man survived in a whale compared to the actual message of the bible.

I admire those who use the inerrancy of scripture as a guard against cherry picking the bits of the bible they like. I admire the faith of those who can beleive in things which fly in the face of "science". But i do think this kind of beleif in the bible carries a risk that in defending those pragmatic things which others will attack (YEC is a good example) they become fixated on those issues to the exclusion of the spiritual.

So to conclude. Now when i come across a contradiction i don't stress about it any more. Perhaps its a difference in emphasis because the two accounts are trying to teach me different things. Perhaps its an error in my understanding. Perhaps its an error of translation. At the end of the day, does it matter?

But hey, what do i know?

Regards
Seeker

third hero
Dec 10th 2007, 09:12 PM
But there is only one thing that I have to say concerning the Bible. There is no contradictions in it.

For instance, I thought that I had found a contradiction when I compared Matthew 24 to Luke 21. Each version of the Oliver discourse deals with one aspect of it over another, with the possibility of ignoring the entire speech. Matthew focused on the signs of the end, while Luke focuses on the events that preceded the destruction of the Temple. Now some may diagree with me, and you can post those disagrements on the ETC, but my POV is as follows.

Upon reading Mark 13, we find that it is probable that the Lord dealt with all of th aspects that Matthew and Luke were zeroing on. What we have is perspective. Matthew found it important to stres the end times signs, and Luke stressed the period before the end times signs, while Mark tells us that both were talked about on the Mount of Olives.

Therefore, all three versions ar correct, and there is no contradiction. Each is presented on the perspective of the author, and each author decided to emphasize what he felt was the most important issues to record. The same can be said with Genesis 1 and 2. Multiple perspectives bringing to light details omitted by the other POV. Even in Revelation, we have this same thing happen. For instance, the Son of man swings a sickle, and reaps the harvest, and another angel gathers the grapes to the winepress of God's wrath. We find this being played out several chapters later. Is it a contradiction, or a change in perspective? Remember, in John's vision, he was jumping between heaven and earth throughout the entire book.

So, before you say that something is a contradiction, take a closer look. You will find that what you thought was a contradiction really isn't.

Jewunit
Dec 11th 2007, 08:02 PM
[quote=third hero;1467527]But there is only one thing that I have to say concerning the Bible. There is no contradictions in it.

quote]

Exacly, and well, bluntly put.

coldfire136
Dec 11th 2007, 08:11 PM
Can someone explain to me why we are even worried about a contradiction in the Bible? We have become so western to think that we have to have a perfect document with on inconsistencies for it to be usable.

Alaska
Dec 11th 2007, 08:32 PM
Some things are not understood, but there are no things that contradict as far as I have ever heard, at least in a decent translation.
In the NIV for example adultery is condoned to some degree. Not so in the KJV.
The NIV for example, which I believe is NOT the Word, as a whole, does in fact, I believe, contain corruptions contradictions etc. That is where some of the confusion comes in with regard to contradictions. Stay away from that thing.

A Seeker
Dec 11th 2007, 08:36 PM
But there is only one thing that I have to say concerning the Bible. There is no contradictions in it.


I'm sorry. I think you are wrong.

There are no contradiction of what the bible MEANS. There are a few contradictions in what it SAYS.

You can find a way to explain them, but a literal interpretation means taking the most obvious explanation with the minimum interpretation. On that basis there are contradictions. This is the problem with the literal approach. It cannot be applied universally.

Drox
Dec 11th 2007, 08:45 PM
The reason this matters, I believe, is because Atheists use contridictions, then point to when Paul says that the Word of Gord is perfect. There's a simple explanation however. The Bible is not the Word of God. It's man's interpretation of God's Word. Man's interpretation is imperfect, and so is the Bible. The Bible's message is completely true, even though some of the minor details are contradictory.

punk
Dec 11th 2007, 09:33 PM
Look, the fact of that matter, so long as the reader is able to fudge on the meanings of words and phrases, then any two arbitrary texts can be taken to be perfectly consistent and non-contradictory.

The fact is all you have to do is assume the texts are consistent and non-contradictory and revise the definitions of the words involved accordingly.

You'll note that quite a few of the arguments explaining why two apparently contradictory biblical passages really aren't boil down to doing this (i.e. redefining the words to "explain" the "apparent" contradiction away).

Of course, on another level those who argue that all religions are basically the same do this as well.

But really, what does positing the non-contradictoriness of the Bible and then redefining words accordingly to make it so really prove?

I mean, what is the point of having a religious text if all you are going to do is redefine all the words to get rid of the problems you have with it?

matthew94
Dec 11th 2007, 09:53 PM
Punk, I think you have a point regarding the attempts to explain apparent contradictions in some cases, but in the case specific to this thread, no re-defining has to take place. Some of the apparent contradictions are just not really there.

punk
Dec 11th 2007, 10:16 PM
Punk, I think you have a point regarding the attempts to explain apparent contradictions in some cases, but in the case specific to this thread, no re-defining has to take place. Some of the apparent contradictions are just not really there.

Well now, that also depends on your theory of how one ought to read the Bible, doesn't it?

I mean, if you are an extreme biblical literalist, then in a sense all the contradictions are "really there". As one weakens the demand of a simple literal interpretation more "contradictions" "go away".

You are just used to a less rigid mode of reading.

;)

coldfire136
Dec 11th 2007, 11:20 PM
In the NIV for example adultery is condoned to some degree. Not so in the KJV.


Please provide evidence for this. Thanks.

I have been following these posts with some interest, but have been disappointed. What we are arguing over is this: At one place the bible says "A," and another place the bible says "B." Why are we so worried about this? I don't think the Jews were worried about it, or they would have been more careful to write in the Western philosophical treatise style. The Jews wrote in a style that the ancient near east would understand. We are at a disadvantage in this regard, but should do what we can to understand the ancient near east to try and remedy it. Talking about contradictions, in my humble opinion, will get us nowhere.

Now.

Someone please explain to me why talking about contradictions is so important?

Jewunit
Dec 12th 2007, 12:39 AM
I'm sorry. I think you are wrong.

There are no contradiction of what the bible MEANS. There are a few contradictions in what it SAYS.

You can find a way to explain them, but a literal interpretation means taking the most obvious explanation with the minimum interpretation. On that basis there are contradictions. This is the problem with the literal approach. It cannot be applied universally.

You're getting way over your head here buddy. When I think of the word contridict I think: To prove that something that has been said can be proven wrong within the same argument. The Bible never does this. While some parts are hard to comprehend it's said to teach the bible so that a young person can understand iut.

th1bill
Dec 12th 2007, 05:04 AM
I'm sorry. I think you are wrong.

There are no contradiction of what the bible MEANS. There are a few contradictions in what it SAYS.

You can find a way to explain them, but a literal interpretation means taking the most obvious explanation with the minimum interpretation. On that basis there are contradictions. This is the problem with the literal approach. It cannot be applied universally.
I have heard and seen that statement so many times I cannot count them and yet no one has produced even one. It is always tossed out as a generalization and that just does not make for intelligent conversation.

OldChurchGuy
Dec 12th 2007, 05:32 AM
Mods, if you could please pin this thread so we can put up things that we think are confusing or that others bring to our attention and use to disbelieve the word.

What is the explanation for the following?:

In Genesis 1:24-27 it says that God created the beasts and birds and then man.

In Genesis 2:18-21,it says God created man then created the beasts and brought them to him to see what he would name them and if they would be a partner.

Please help.

There is a school of thought which believes Genesis 1 is written by one author and Genesis 2 is written by another author. When the final version of Genesis was being put together (possibly during the reign of King Josiah), the editor(s) left both in because no one knew which one to leave out. Genesis 1 uses the Hebrew word "Elohim" which is translated in the KJV as "God". "God" is also shown in the first three verses of Chapter 2. Starting with verse 4 the Hebrew word "Yahweh" is used and is translated in the KJV as "Lord God".

It is my understanding you will find a similar distinction for just about any translation of the Hebrew into English. Of course, it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong.

Now before you begin girding your loins for battle, please understand I am not advocating that the above interpretation is correct and all others are wrong. The above is presented as another possible explanation of the wording in Genesis 1 and 2.

Since we do not have the original copy of Genesis, the idea of 2 authors can be neither proven nor disproven.

From my perspective, the key to these two chapters is that for the first time in recorded history, the responsibility for the entire known universe and everything in it is credited to a single God. At the time, this was a rather radical idea.

As always,

OldChurchGuy

A Seeker
Dec 12th 2007, 06:49 PM
You're getting way over your head here buddy. When I think of the word contridict I think: To prove that something that has been said can be proven wrong within the same argument. The Bible never does this. While some parts are hard to comprehend it's said to teach the bible so that a young person can understand iut.


Possibly. But i think not

Contradictory, in my dictionary, comes back with "inconsistant". Do you accept, for example that their are inconsistances between the gospels where one says one thing and another says something different?

I'd rather not go into them because i don't want this to turn into one of those threads, i'd rather make it about how we handle the apparent inconsistances (whether or not they are real).

It is interesting that when i was discussing this issue with Wildy (wife, technically agnostic) she mentioned that one of the things which caused her concern about christians was the circular logic of denying the contradictory bits, ie the bible is inerrant therefore there cannot be inconsistancy because then it would not be inerrant. For an outsider that is hard to grasp.

Oh and hi to you bill. The reason i am being general is that to be specific always puts me in a position of "attacking the truth of gods word" which is not what i want and not what i am doing. Really it's not. I think to focus on these things is a mistake. However i also think that it is a mistake to make blanket claims of fact which fly in the face of a literal reading of what the book says.


Someone please explain to me why talking about contradictions is so important?

I think how we handle the issue is significant in how we represent ourselves. This is an issue which is often used to argue against christianity and i think we need to have some answers whichever camp you sit in.

Regards
Seeker

Jewunit
Dec 12th 2007, 07:24 PM
Possibly. But i think not

Contradictory, in my dictionary, comes back with "inconsistant". Do you accept, for example that their are inconsistances between the gospels where one says one thing and another says something different?

I'd rather not go into them because i don't want this to turn into one of those threads, i'd rather make it about how we handle the apparent inconsistances (whether or not they are real).

It is interesting that when i was discussing this issue with Wildy (wife, technically agnostic) she mentioned that one of the things which caused her concern about christians was the circular logic of denying the contradictory bits, ie the bible is inerrant therefore there cannot be inconsistancy because then it would not be inerrant. For an outsider that is hard to grasp.

Oh and hi to you bill. The reason i am being general is that to be specific always puts me in a position of "attacking the truth of gods word" which is not what i want and not what i am doing. Really it's not. I think to focus on these things is a mistake. However i also think that it is a mistake to make blanket claims of fact which fly in the face of a literal reading of what the book says.



I think how we handle the issue is significant in how we represent ourselves. This is an issue which is often used to argue against christianity and i think we need to have some answers whichever camp you sit in.

Regards
Seeker

Yet again i think you're going to far in on this........while it may seem that the bible contridicts itself you have to just realize that it doesn't bc of who produced it. Maybe simple questions can help you like which should I spend more time with my dictionary trying to see how the bible can be proven in one way or another or trying to explain to other young Christians about the bible.

Please don't take this a personal flame.:)

Thanx and God Bless.

third hero
Dec 12th 2007, 07:25 PM
I'm sorry. I think you are wrong.

There are no contradiction of what the bible MEANS. There are a few contradictions in what it SAYS.

You can find a way to explain them, but a literal interpretation means taking the most obvious explanation with the minimum interpretation. On that basis there are contradictions. This is the problem with the literal approach. It cannot be applied universally.

The burden of proof is on you, A seeker. If the Bible has contradictions, show them to me.

third hero
Dec 12th 2007, 07:28 PM
Possibly. But i think not

Contradictory, in my dictionary, comes back with "inconsistant". Do you accept, for example that their are inconsistances between the gospels where one says one thing and another says something different?

I'd rather not go into them because i don't want this to turn into one of those threads, i'd rather make it about how we handle the apparent inconsistances (whether or not they are real).

It is interesting that when i was discussing this issue with Wildy (wife, technically agnostic) she mentioned that one of the things which caused her concern about christians was the circular logic of denying the contradictory bits, ie the bible is inerrant therefore there cannot be inconsistancy because then it would not be inerrant. For an outsider that is hard to grasp.

Oh and hi to you bill. The reason i am being general is that to be specific always puts me in a position of "attacking the truth of gods word" which is not what i want and not what i am doing. Really it's not. I think to focus on these things is a mistake. However i also think that it is a mistake to make blanket claims of fact which fly in the face of a literal reading of what the book says.



I think how we handle the issue is significant in how we represent ourselves. This is an issue which is often used to argue against christianity and i think we need to have some answers whichever camp you sit in.

Regards
Seeker

Again, in order ot say that the bible has contradictions, one must show the contradictions. Saying that Genesis 1 and 2 are contradictions, when it was already proven that they are not contradictory in any way. only proves that someone is trying to create controversy where none exists. Again, the burden or proof is in your hands. Until you show me contradictions, I am not going to say that contradictions exist.

obeytheword
Dec 13th 2007, 05:12 PM
I believe examples must be given before any claim of a contradiction is made - why? The texts were written a very long time ago, and have been copied tons of times, and translated as well - in most cases centuries after the original texts were written. The current versions of the bible (NIV is a rather bad one) DO contain things that APPEAR to contradict one another. You must follow a simple rule however. If one example says A = B and another A = C - then there is no contradiction - because B can = C.

To make it more clear - look at who saw the empty tomb first in the gospels.

Matthew - "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary"
Mark - "Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome"
Luke - "Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them"
John - "Mary Magdalene"

In every cast Mary Magdalene is mentioned. In 3 of the 4 - Mary - the mother of James is mentioned. Each author mentions the ones he believes important in some way. Notice that only Luke - who is very precise with his writing mentions everyone - and even then - does not mention Salome by name. This does not represent a contradiction in any way. For the math types - for there to be a contradiction, scripture must say A=B and A <> B. Must say that something IS and something IS NOT.

Now - to get back to the point of the thread. Here is one that I have not fully reconciled in my mind. There is not a direct contradiction but it is not really clear how to interpret.

Look in Acts 9 - and also at Galatians 1:11-24 the 2 accounts appear inconsistent - but I believe the primary problem is that in Acts we again have Luke - being precise, and telling a chronological story, While in Galatians, Paul is recollecting his conversion, and if you lay out a time-line, it certainly IS possible that both accounts are absolutely true.

Question I have is has anyone looked at the underlying greek to see if that sheds any light on the translations?

third hero
Dec 13th 2007, 07:16 PM
Now - to get back to the point of the thread. Here is one that I have not fully reconciled in my mind. There is not a direct contradiction but it is not really clear how to interpret.

Look in Acts 9 - and also at Galatians 1:11-24 the 2 accounts appear inconsistent - but I believe the primary problem is that in Acts we again have Luke - being precise, and telling a chronological story, While in Galatians, Paul is recollecting his conversion, and if you lay out a time-line, it certainly IS possible that both accounts are absolutely true.

Question I have is has anyone looked at the underlying greek to see if that sheds any light on the translations?

Now this is a good example. I do not find a contradiction here, but an error, on the side of Luke. Luke seemed as though he was in a rush to talk about the significance of Paul in the spreading of the Gospel to his friend Thoephilus... I think that was his name. And so, Luke omitted a few details, which is not the first time he has done this. Luke has done the same exact thing in the telling of the Mount of Olives. He wanted to stress to Theophilus that Jesus talked aboutthe destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, as though it had already happened and that he was trying to convince him that Jesus was more than just a prophet.

I am not a linguist, but I do read some books, and I am also a budding author. A Storyteller has a style in which he tells a story, and the differing styles are present in the retelling of the life of Jesus. Mark and Matthew's style is very different than each others and Luke's. Again, I site the Olivet discourse verses in each book. Matthew deals exclusively with the end times signs and the return of the Lord. Mark incorporates some of what Jesus said concerning the signs before the end times birth pangs, and Luke deals with almost exclusively with thew signs before the birth pangs. While each describes certain aspects, each omit some material.

In Acts 9, Luke omits the three years in which Paul separated himself from the world and goes to Arabia. Paul tells us almost verbatim what happened after the road to Damascus, which makes sense. Remember, Paul, who was then named Saul, sought out and saw to the executions of many believers, in the name of God. what does one do when they find that they were in error? they do not just change their minds and go about their business. It affects them deeply. It completely alters them! He was destrought when he realized that he slaughtered innocent blood! Also, since he was a pharisee, he had to reread the scriptures, and see what the Lord was saying when He cornered him on the road to Damascus. Paul had no idea how Lord Jesus fulfilled prophecy, but the training that he recieved did him a lot of justice, as we recognize today.

Remember, it was Paul who rebuked Peter for being too snooty against the Gentiles because his "Jewish" friends were around. I also believe that this was why Paul wrote the famous quote concerning all being one in Christ Jesus. But that's another thought.

Luke has done some boo-boos before, and this one is no different. In an attempt to talk about Paul's ministry, he left out a couple of details. That is how I explain the appearances of contradiction between Luke's version and Paul's account. It wasn't the first time that Luke, the "reporter" left out details in favor of other details, and it looks like we may in fact find more.

Now do not get me wrong, when I say that Luke erred, I am not saying that he lied or covered up the truth, which is to say that there are errors found int he book of the Bible. I am merely saying that I feel as though Luke erred, becasue if I was writing the Gospel and the book of Acts, I would leave no detail unaccounted for. He has. That is my opinion, and that is what I am sticking to.

A Seeker
Dec 13th 2007, 08:00 PM
This one is gonna get ugly. Again.


Yet again i think you're going to far in on this........while it may seem that the bible contridicts itself you have to just realize that it doesn't bc of who produced it. Maybe simple questions can help you like which should I spend more time with my dictionary trying to see how the bible can be proven in one way or another or trying to explain to other young Christians about the bible.

Please don't take this a personal flame.:)


I don't take it as a personal flame, because the person you are critising does not sound like me (to me;)). I'm not fully sure why these things always become about the person argueing the position rather than the position they are arguing. However. Moving on.

I really don't want to do this but since you push me.

matthew 27:28
and put on him a scarlet robe

John 19:2
and they put on him a purple robe.

Now i'm not saying this important. Maybe the robe was a purpley red colour, maybe the dye was somewhere in the middle. Maybe the robe was red AND purple, maybe one of them was colourblind! To me it does not matter a jot. But the middle and both ends is that red is not purple. And i think trying to say that with a absolute literal interpretation it is undermines the position i'm trying to communicate.

The only significance of this is when somebody to whom we are trying to wittness asks the question (which, BTW, is how this one came to my attention).

Now i can either say that the important bit is not the bits where the accounts don't match but the bits where it DOES, or i can try to find an argument where, without resorting to a liberal interpretation, red becomes purple.

Please, critise what i say by all means. But if you can, refrain from second guessing me or my motivations. Its faintly patronising and does not move the debate forward. Ta:hug:

Blessings
Seeker

Kahtar
Dec 14th 2007, 06:21 PM
I'll put the reminder in here - discuss the topic, not each other.;)

Jewunit
Dec 14th 2007, 07:54 PM
Yet again this all goes back to what I said earlier diffrent view point make people think diffrent, that is by no means a contridiction bc to someone it looked one colour to the other it looked diffrent.

coldfire136
Dec 14th 2007, 08:12 PM
I haven't read the entirety of the thread, but I have read enough threads about contradictions to know the basic ideas that people take about the Bible. Here is seems you are discussing the gospels. The basic theory, as far as I understand it, is that Mark wrote his gospel first and then Luke and Matthew put their own spin on Mark's gospel. Following this, John wrote his own gospel, but it was fairly separate from the other three gospels.

I cannot comment to heavily on the Synoptic gospels, but I do know that the Johannine gospel was probably written for a certain group of Christians in the early world who had been kicked out of the synagogue. In the gospel of John, Jesus is reordering the temple around himself. He is claiming himself as the new Israel. His gospel, in my humble opinion, is not as political because it is meant to be a guide for the people in his own community. Because his community had certain needs, he was writing so that those needs would be met. He was interpreting the events of Jesus in light of his community.

We must understand that the evangelists who wrote the synoptic gospels all had evangelical agendas and their agendas come across in what they keep in the book and what they leave out. Luke feels it is necessary to expound more upon the birth of Jesus and the virgin birth, while Mark tends to more succinct.

I am not advocating something quite as liberal as Burton Mack would or the Jesus Seminar (although I do sympathasize with some of their ideas and hold respect for Dominic Crossan as a mighty intellectual force). I think that the events that happen in the gospel really did happen, but that the evangelists in the synoptics may have changed Jesus words around slightly to fit better into their theological framework (not the message, but the words).

Also, I would not attempt trying to understand a historical westernized understanding of a logical progression of events from the gospels. The authors have reordered what Jesus said so that it makes sense in a larger theological work. The authors were more concerned with making the work flow theologically, than with making the work flow historically in a linear progression (you only need to read the gospel of John to understand this. John has Jesus spending much more time in Jerusalem than the other gospels.) The authors focus on what they do because of their theological suppositions. Arguing over the minor details is doing a disservice to their theology, as it can only be understood in a larger context.

There will be obvious contradictions between the gospels because the writers have changed words around to fit into a larger theological framework. This is just something we have to accept, otherwise we will be defending rather than understanding the gospel for our whole lives. And this is a fruitless debate.

third hero
Dec 14th 2007, 08:39 PM
This one is gonna get ugly. Again.
I really don't want to do this but since you push me.

matthew 27:28
and put on him a scarlet robe

John 19:2
and they put on him a purple robe.

Now i'm not saying this important. Maybe the robe was a purpley red colour, maybe the dye was somewhere in the middle. Maybe the robe was red AND purple, maybe one of them was colourblind! To me it does not matter a jot. But the middle and both ends is that red is not purple. And i think trying to say that with a absolute literal interpretation it is undermines the position i'm trying to communicate.

Please, critise what i say by all means. But if you can, refrain from second guessing me or my motivations. Its faintly patronising and does not move the debate forward. Ta:hug:

Blessings
Seeker

umm....

Scarlett... or purple.... on a body ful of red....well....

That is not a contradiction. It is an observation based solely on one's eyes. Many times, I see blue where others see green. Am I wrong, or is my sense of sight a little different than others? I believe that this may be the case here. It's sort-of like the color royal blue. Is it blue? Is it purple? Looks purple to me! Am I wrong? Well, some scarlets look like purple, and some purples, I would swear look like red. However, that is a sensory thing, and not a contradiction.

So, where are they again? I am sorry, I mean no disrespect. Really. I know that many people are just plain lost when it comes to the Bible and the various versions of it. There are more versions of the Bible than stories from witnesses in NY during 9/11. Some bibles emphasize certain things while others emphasize other ascpects, while some are just emphasizing blasphemy. How are we to know what is right and which one is wrong? Well, research. That, and a lot of prayer. There are things written in the Bible that seemed to be contradictory, and I agree that on the surface, they can be viewed as such. However, when one dives into the word, and study it, one comes to the realization that those "contradictions" aren't contradictions at all.

The closest example I have ever read to a contradiction was the LUke and Matthew accounts of tthe Olivet discourse. If Mark's version wasn't there, I would have to discount the whole thing, because Matthew clearly works on one aspect while Luke wrote about another. (BTW the galatians and Acts 9 came pretty close too). But again, while studying the word, and seeing what each version of the same story had to tell, it became obvious that these men are writing according to their perspective, with no contradictions, but rather some omissions and the others cover.

I hope that helps a little. And the color of the words is black... or is it gray? Maybe brown? Who knows? A color-blind person is not contradicting anyone, but he can not differenciate colors with his eyes...

Ok, that's not a funny one, but at least I tried!

A Seeker
Dec 14th 2007, 08:51 PM
And this is a fruitless debate.


Not entirely fruitless. I found your post to be interesting and informative. Also these are questions asked of me by others. It helps to get help answering.


Yet again this all goes back to what I said earlier diffrent view point make people think diffrent, that is by no means a contridiction bc to someone it looked one colour to the other it looked diffrent

I suspect you are right. The bible is written through the filter of human perception, which is flawed.

However by any definition if one gospel says one thing and another says something different that IS a contradiction. Red is not purple. The reasons are neither here nor their.
If i order a car in red and it arrives in purple and the salesman claims i ordered purple he is contradicting me.

If you read the matthew account literally you would say, with the full weight of the innerrant word of God behind you, that the robe was red. If the robe was purple would you still be right? and vice versa?

What colour do you think the robe was?

Blessings
Seeker

A Seeker
Dec 14th 2007, 09:02 PM
Sorry 3 hero, yours came in while i was typing mine.



That is not a contradiction. It is an observation based solely on one's eyes. Many times, I see blue where others see green. Am I wrong, or is my sense of sight a little different than others? I believe that this may be the case here. It's sort-of like the color royal blue. Is it blue? Is it purple? Looks purple to me! Am I wrong? Well, some scarlets look like purple, and some purples, I would swear look like red. However, that is a sensory thing, and not a contradiction.



An interesting discourse, however i think it misses the point. The point is not that one of the accounts must have been wrong, but that if we read the bible as stone cold literal we may be misled by the "sensory things" you talk about.

At the end of the day all we have are "sensory things", they are how we interact with the universe.

Lets imagine for a moment that we had only 3 gospels. Lets imagine that we only had the "red" account.

Now imagine i had offered a post saying the robe was purple.

You would, i suspect, tell me that i was wrong. Not so?

And how do i answer this guy who says that red and purple are different. "no they are actually the same?!" can't see that going over well.

Regards
Seeker

A Seeker
Dec 14th 2007, 09:10 PM
Here's a thought. You say that

A color-blind person is not contradicting anyone, but he can not differenciate colors with his eyes...


Noah could not see the other side of the planet. He could not differentiate (with his eyes) between the mountains he could see and the ones on the other side of the planet. Does that mean it might not have been a global flood?

Saved7
Dec 14th 2007, 09:19 PM
The reason this matters, I believe, is because Atheists use contridictions, then point to when Paul says that the Word of Gord is perfect. There's a simple explanation however. The Bible is not the Word of God. It's man's interpretation of God's Word. Man's interpretation is imperfect, and so is the Bible. The Bible's message is completely true, even though some of the minor details are contradictory.


While I agree with what you are saying to an extent (I believe the bible IS in fact God's word, and that God is powerful enough to preserve His word, even through man's hands); I have to say you really need to be very careful about your wording on this subject.
What you said could lead to an even more dangerous conversation.

And example of an athiests response to what you just said would be something along the lines of..."Well, then who's to say that it can be trusted at all? How can you believe any of it? After all, as you said, it's MAN'S INTERPRETATION of God's word, and we all know that man is corrupt, therefore, man should not be trusted. So why should you trust the bible? Who's to say you are right about Jesus?"

Just some food for thought, when approaching this subject for debate with an athiest or some other non-believer.:saint:

spm62
Dec 15th 2007, 12:33 AM
Joe,
.. Over sixteen years ago I was not a Christian and the fact that people would pull a sentence, sometimes a partial sentence out of context to build a complete doctrine or a reason to discount the Bible just floored me. Since becoming a convert and a solid, do or die, believer it often leaves me speechless that people can do this and believe they are correct.
.. They will never change and the very best we can do in cases of this type is to follow the advice of our LORD. We need to kick the dust loose and move to the next person. It is just pointless to waste our time on he that just will not hear when there are so very many that are just dying to receive the truth.
.. Move on and be obediant and you will rejoice over the ones that listen and receive.

That`s good advice

SunnyE
Dec 15th 2007, 05:40 AM
Does anyone know when an electronic gadget was first mentioned in the bible?

When a rib was taken from Adam and a LOUDSPEAKER was made! :spin:

obeytheword
Dec 17th 2007, 02:49 PM
Sorry 3 hero, yours came in while i was typing mine.



An interesting discourse, however i think it misses the point. The point is not that one of the accounts must have been wrong, but that if we read the bible as stone cold literal we may be misled by the "sensory things" you talk about.

At the end of the day all we have are "sensory things", they are how we interact with the universe.

Lets imagine for a moment that we had only 3 gospels. Lets imagine that we only had the "red" account.

Now imagine i had offered a post saying the robe was purple.

You would, i suspect, tell me that i was wrong. Not so?

And how do i answer this guy who says that red and purple are different. "no they are actually the same?!" can't see that going over well.

Regards
Seeker


While I understand what you mean by this, and the problems it can cause when witnessing - the second sentence is the fallacy. Many sections of the bible ARE stone cold literal. But the problems when using a strictly literal approach is that you are reading something written 2000 years ago (new testament anyway), in a completely different culture, in a completely different language. Doing a strictly literal translation and allowing for nothing else will almost always cause problems.

Just a simple example that is nowhere near as complex as this issue. If you read a quote from a book even 100 years ago written in English, especially in England that said "I threw the fags on the fire" How would most people of today read it?

They would conclude you took a few homosexuals and threw them on the fire - and not that you threw a few more logs on the fire. The meaning of the word has changed. That is a rather over-simplified example when compared to the translation of the bible - but in any case, it is irrelevant.

Your job when witnessing to someone is to present the truth. When they ask questions, have answers, but if they are caught up in something so incredibly simple, then they are simply not ready to hear the truth. You are not going to "debate" someone into salvation, or "convince" them that you are right, and they are wrong. The only purpose of a thread like this is to help equip each of us on how you go about presenting the case of the gospel - in spite of the many seeming in-consistencies in the bible as a whole.

Be Blessed

A Seeker
Dec 17th 2007, 07:46 PM
Many sections of the bible ARE stone cold literal. But the problems when using a strictly literal approach is that you are reading something written 2000 years ago (new testament anyway), in a completely different culture, in a completely different language. Doing a strictly literal translation and allowing for nothing else will almost always cause problems.



Absolutly agree. This is the problem i have with the literalist interpretation. Which is not the same as the inerrancy thing.



If you read a quote from a book even 100 years ago written in English, especially in England that said "I threw the fags on the fire" How would most people of today read it?



I sometimes, in darker moments, think some would read it as sound policy.



Your job when witnessing to someone is to present the truth. When they ask questions, have answers, but if they are caught up in something so incredibly simple, then they are simply not ready to hear the truth. You are not going to "debate" someone into salvation, or "convince" them that you are right, and they are wrong.


I think you are right. Nobody i know of has ever been "reasoned" into a relationship with Jesus. However I think the fact that i care enough about him to take the time to have the debates, to seriously look for answers to the questions (even if i know he is only looking for ways to prove me wrong) says something in and of itself.

I've never been comfortable with the "shake the dust from your feet" principle. I think we always have to try, and keep trying, and then try some more. This was the attitude patient christians took with me years ago and it paid off in the end.

As some clever st. (assissi i think) said, "we must always wittness, and sometimes use words".

Blessings back at ya

Seeker

brandonspopo
Dec 27th 2007, 05:36 PM
Any text worth anything has contradictions in it.

The contradictions are what we can grab hold of.

A text without contradictions is too smooth a thing. It doesn't require any thinking. It doesn't permit the reader to engage it.

Rejoice in the contradictions.

A foolish consistency is the bugbear of small minds.
There are no contradictions in the Bible. The Word is perfect.
Back to the OP:The first chapter of Genesis is a synopsis of creation. The second is more detailed and focuses on the creation of man (and was unlikely intended to be a separate creation account). The NIV translates Gen 2:19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?Genesis+2:19) as follows: "Now that LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man..."
Simply put, the Garden could have initially been without animal life, and God simply brought the animals he had already created to Adam.

Athanasius
Dec 27th 2007, 06:52 PM
Can someone explain to me why we are even worried about a contradiction in the Bible? We have become so western to think that we have to have a perfect document with on inconsistencies for it to be usable.

Speaking of original authorship, not translational issues or redaction related issues.

God inspired the Bible, if there is a contradiction between (1) and (2) then we must ask the question: if God is omniscient, why did he contradict Himself? If God contradicted himself, he isn't omniscient. If God isn't omniscient. . . Get the idea?

How is it a Western idea? If an apparently All powerful (knowing) God inspired a book and contradicted himself (went against His word!) then we have a huge problem for Christianity--the faith is false.


I'm sorry. I think you are wrong.

There are no contradiction of what the bible MEANS. There are a few contradictions in what it SAYS.

You can find a way to explain them, but a literal interpretation means taking the most obvious explanation with the minimum interpretation. On that basis there are contradictions. This is the problem with the literal approach. It cannot be applied universally.

Arguing semantics, the 'literal' approach can be applied universally.
Applying metaphor, allegory and any number of literary 'technique' to verses which don't quite fit in is a cop out.

If the Bible means one thing, but says another then God still inspired a contradiction. Ergo, God isn't omniscient. There have be no contradictions, errors, mistakes, etc in the Bible.




Adding to the post above me. It's interesting to note that Genesis 1 contains a reference time, Genesis 2 doesn't ;)

A Seeker
Dec 27th 2007, 07:55 PM
Hey xel naga. Nice to see you here.



Applying metaphor, allegory and any number of literary 'technique' to verses which don't quite fit in is a cop out.


A very confident position. Would you mind having a look at post number 38 on this thread and tell me how this works without resorting to the above cop outs?

I think your logic re the omniscience of God i think you are making a logical error. You said



If the Bible means one thing, but says another then God still inspired a contradiction. Ergo, God isn't omniscient.

The above statement presumes that the bible is inspired by god and 100% faithfully recorded and free from the possibility of misunderstanding. To say that Biblical error implies divine falibility implies infalibility on the part of the bible. Its circular logic.

Blessings to you:hug:

Athanasius
Dec 27th 2007, 10:30 PM
A very confident position. Would you mind having a look at post number 38 on this thread and tell me how this works without resorting to the above cop outs?

That's quite an odd way to provide a position for a mainly non literal interpretation of the Bible (I, of course, am not saying everything in the Bible is to be read literally). If we take Jesus' robe as being metaphor then we should expect the entire account to be metaphor. Relating to Revelation, perhaps? Double meanings, allegory, metaphor. Or perhaps there is a literal account with metaphorical symbolism?

It would be appropriate for me to expand on my rather simplistic discourse of Biblical inspiration. The Bible is the inspired word of God, 2 Timothy 2:16 says that all of it is inspired (Plenary Verbal). Furthermore, it is the inspired word of God through the bias' of human writers--through their eyes.

What wasn't mentioned in third_hero's reply (or in your answer to him) was that the colors scarlet and purple in Roman times were extraordinarily similar. Why does one person seeing purple and the other scarlet immediately necessitate a jump to a metaphorical interpretation of Jesus' robe? I should point out that metaphor or not, you still have to deal with the issue of Jesus' robe being scarlet or purple, depending on which Gospel account you read. It is, either way, no contradiction. Just as Genesis 1 and 2 are complimentary accounts of the same set of events, so are the accounts in Matthew and John. You've now got a better idea of what the robe put on Jesus looked like, rather than just purple or just scarlet.

The answer, without getting metaphorical, is that the Bible is the inspired word of God whom allows for the unique styles and views of each Biblical author to be present in the account--That's why the Synoptic Gospels aren't direct imitations of each other. Matthew saw scarlet, John saw purple. Perhaps the garment was faded, would they really give a dead man a new robe? No.

Though I still fail to see what your example set out to prove?




I think your logic re the omniscience of God i think you are making a logical error. You said

The above statement presumes that the bible is inspired by god and 100% faithfully recorded and free from the possibility of misunderstanding. To say that Biblical error implies divine falibility implies infalibility on the part of the bible. Its circular logic.

Blessings to you:hug:

I presume the Bible to be inspired 100% and copied down as faithfully as humanly possible (I'm even going to throw in some divine governing in that area). The possibility of misunderstanding, however, is not something my statement covers.

What do you do with a God who inspired a self contradicting book?
Throw him out.

A Seeker
Dec 28th 2007, 07:15 PM
Thankyou for replying xel. You sound informed and insightful and i hope you can help me find some answers.



(I, of course, am not saying everything in the Bible is to be read literally)

Sorry. I misunderstood your position. I thought that was what you meant when you said



the 'literal' approach can be applied universally




If we take Jesus' robe as being metaphor then we should expect the entire account to be metaphor. Relating to Revelation, perhaps? Double meanings, allegory, metaphor. Or perhaps there is a literal account with metaphorical symbolism?



Nononono. Not what i am saying at all. I always struggle to have this debate with people when they throw the whole "if you doubt any of it then you doubt all of it" thing at me. It simply does not follow.



The Bible is the inspired word of God, 2 Timothy 2:16 says that all of it is inspired (Plenary Verbal). Furthermore, it is the inspired word of God through the bias' of human writers--through their eyes.



This i agree with 100%. I have no doubt that the bible was divinely inspired. However although God speaks quite clearly us humans don't listen so good. And by the time you throw in the bias of the human writers and the bias of the human readers i think errors creep in. Thats not to say that
Ergo, God isn't omniscient merely that humans are all too fallible.



What wasn't mentioned in third_hero's reply (or in your answer to him) was that the colors scarlet and purple in Roman times were extraordinarily similar. Why does one person seeing purple and the other scarlet immediately necessitate a jump to a metaphorical interpretation of Jesus' robe?


Yes i'd read that as an explanation. However that (for me) misses the point somewhat. If the robe was purply red, it was not red. If i read purple, i visualise purple. Therefore i've got it wrong.

I suppose one could argue that the bible must be read in its entirity. That if one gospel says purple and one red we should add them together and divide by two (so to speak) to find the truth (purpley red) . One could further argue that God saw to it that everything that needed to be there was there so where there is one account we can rely on only needing one.

However this brings us back to what constitutes a contradiction. And by the accurate use of the language this IS a contradiction. We can say the the bible should be taken in its entirity and that excuses us from the possibility, however in my opinion, to use your phrase, a cop out.


Though I still fail to see what your example set out to prove?


I'm not really trying to prove anything. I just don't understand how we can make absolute statements about bible containing no contradictions when they appear to be there. I suppose really i am testing my faith. Because the world will test my faith often enough and i would like to think i have the courage to ask myself the hard questions and not let them go until i have good answers.


I presume the Bible to be inspired 100% and copied down as faithfully as humanly possible (I'm even going to throw in some divine governing in that area). The possibility of misunderstanding, however, is not something my statement covers.

Interesting. Misunderstanding by the writers or the readers?



What do you do with a God who inspired a self contradicting book?
Throw him out.

This, i presume, is a joke. :confusedBut since you ask, he dragged me out of a horrific empty excuse for life, waited patiently for me to be ready to come to him, gave me more oppertunities than anyone has any right to expect, showed me absolute unconditional love when nobody else would, even before i made a commitment to him, led me to good people who helped me further, changed me without interfering with my free will, gave me a life i would never have dreamed possible, a wife who makes me complete and two children in whom i see him looking back whenever i look at them.

So no, even if i find a few problems with his book i'll hang on to him thanks.

Athanasius
Dec 28th 2007, 07:50 PM
Thankyou for replying xel. You sound informed and insightful and i hope you can help me find some answers.

Sorry. I misunderstood your position. I thought that was what you meant when you said

It's something I've had to clarify enough times to know to clarify it before I say it. I think I could have better stated my position; I view the Bible from a literal standpoint but readily acknowledge that it does contain poetry, metaphor, simile, etc.



Nononono. Not what i am saying at all. I always struggle to have this debate with people when they throw the whole "if you doubt any of it then you doubt all of it" thing at me. It simply does not follow.

Well I think there are obvious Biblical 'stories' which are metaphorical. It's when you start applying allegory or metaphor to accounts which don't have an obvious 'non-literal' feel to them that the issue for many people comes up. If X is metaphor, who's to say Y isn't? And if one person says it isn't, but another does, then who's right?



This i agree with 100%. I have no doubt that the bible was divinely inspired. However although God speaks quite clearly us humans don't listen so good. And by the time you throw in the bias of the human writers and the bias of the human readers i think errors creep in. Thats not to say that merely that humans are all too fallible.

I'm going to have to agree, but also say that where God's word is concerned--it's infallible. Quite unlike the Pope ;)



Yes i'd read that as an explanation. However that (for me) misses the point somewhat. If the robe was purply red, it was not red. If i read purple, i visualise purple. Therefore i've got it wrong.

I suppose one could argue that the bible must be read in its entirity. That if one gospel says purple and one red we should add them together and divide by two (so to speak) to find the truth (purpley red) . One could further argue that God saw to it that everything that needed to be there was there so where there is one account we can rely on only needing one.

However this brings us back to what constitutes a contradiction. And by the accurate use of the language this IS a contradiction. We can say the the bible should be taken in its entirity and that excuses us from the possibility, however in my opinion, to use your phrase, a cop out.

Well, I don't think there's a big issue 'envisioning' something wrong. . .
Unless you believe Jesus to be a Swedish supermodel, a Democrat and rationale for the KKK--but I don't think very many people do.

I think the apparent obviousness of Biblical accounts is that they aren't all the same, nor do they each cover the 'whole' story. You have to read Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to get a whole picture of the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ.



I'm not really trying to prove anything. I just don't understand how we can make absolute statements about bible containing no contradictions when they appear to be there. I suppose really i am testing my faith. Because the world will test my faith often enough and i would like to think i have the courage to ask myself the hard questions and not let them go until i have good answers.

Humans may have written the Bible, but it was the inspiration of God that directed those same people. There's no position 'in between'. There can't be any contradictions, just like Jesus can't simply be a good, moral teacher.

I think, anyway.




Interesting. Misunderstanding by the writers or the readers?

Readers.
I think the writers wrote things they didn't fully grasp, but they still wrote.



This, i presume, is a joke. :confusedBut since you ask, he dragged me out of a horrific empty excuse for life, waited patiently for me to be ready to come to him, gave me more oppertunities than anyone has any right to expect, showed me absolute unconditional love when nobody else would, even before i made a commitment to him, led me to good people who helped me further, changed me without interfering with my free will, gave me a life i would never have dreamed possible, a wife who makes me complete and two children in whom i see him looking back whenever i look at them.

So no, even if i find a few problems with his book i'll hang on to him thanks.

It was sarcasm gone awry, yes.