101 contradictions in Bible

Hi MarcAC,

"Sometimes one has to infer"

It sounds like by "infer" you mean saying: "The Bible doesn't mean what it clearly says".

I think it was W.F. Albright who said "It says what it says" (refering to the Bible of course).

"I prefer the word paradoxes."

You're putting quite a bit of spin on this matter.

"Where?"

Genesis 15:2: "But Abram answered, "O Lord Yahweh..."

Also see Genesis 17:13, 24:7, 28:13 ("I Yahweh am the God...")

There are many other examples of the patriarchs using the term "Yahweh".

"The dated arrival of the Phillistines is still subject to debate."

If you have any evidence that the Phillistines arrived at around 2100 BCE I'm curious to see it. I've read a slew of scholars who put the arrival at around 2100 BCE.

"People seem to expect that it should do better than any other "historical" text and match "history" frame by frame - a rather naive expectation."

I expect no such think from an ancient Near Eastern text. Many fundamentalists claim that it's innerant and whatnot which I think is silly.
 
Oh, well, Matthew already did the father's line, I'll do the mother's!" If he had done so or intended to do so, he would have made it clear by saying that Heli was Joseph's father-in-law (more probably he would have named Mary rather than Joseph), rather than stating as he does that Heli was his father
Click to expand...

Luke did the mother's linneage because he tended to show an emphasis on women. Most historians agree that joseph died while jesus was still young, so it is possible that heli was a 'step father' to him.

a side note, what version of the bible says Heli? mine calles him Eli.
 
Enigma'07: Luke did the mother's linneage because he tended to show an emphasis on women. Most historians agree that joseph died while jesus was still young, so it is possible that heli was a 'step father' to him.
*************
M*W: The reason Luke (if he even wrote the gospel) followed Mary's lineage was because her lineage was the only one known; however, Heli was allegedly the "father" of Joseph, or the "father" Joseph (Egyptian title) was known to worship which means "Helios" the sun.
*************
Enigma'07: a side note, what version of the bible says Heli? mine calles him Eli.
*************
M*W: It doesn't matter what version of the bible says "Heli" or "Eli." They mean the same thing "Sun=God."
 
Here is the article from Awake magazine which belongs to Jehowah witnessess.

AwakeArticle(1957).html
 
Silas said:
Can I just say, isn't that the most vomitous Biblical translation anyone's ever read?
Click to expand...
You speak for a lot of personalities I see... the CEV translation has its relevance.
The implication in Job is that Satan is a servant of God, but the Chronicles view is the (now) more traditional one of him as the Adversary.
Click to expand...
Satan is subject to God's will but he obviously has his free will. Free to tempt Job in God's test; free to tempt David in God's test.
It is not paradoxical that God does a thing in one document and Satan does that thing in another document, or that Joseph is the son of Jacob in one document and Heli in another.
Click to expand...
Most certainly. It is the interpretation of what is stated which is paradoxical: hence the need to find a resolution.

Non-[Theists/Christians] will have tons of problems when people seek some solution to a biblical paradox; simply because they don't have faith in God. If they did have faith then they'd try to find a non-contradictory solution.

I explained my solution quite well in my opinion such that people could read and express their emotional reactions to it. If it leads to further contradiction well then there is a problem; if not, well it's a possible solution. We can use the assumption of the bible's internal consistency (as God's word to man through man) to resolve these paradoxes... and the explanations can and are quite well backed up.
 
Throckmorton said:
Hi MarcAC,
It sounds like by "infer" you mean saying: "The Bible doesn't mean what it clearly says".
Click to expand...
More: it might not mean what you think it says, especially when "contradictions" arise.
You're putting quite a bit of spin on this matter.
Click to expand...
Why? Because I believe the Bible to be the internally consistent Word of God to man?
There are many other examples of the patriarchs using the term "Yahweh".
Click to expand...
Yes it appears so; thus the alternative interpretation of the statement in Exodus 6:3 as an implied question; rhetorical really. It actually fits more comfortably into the context of the passage too: NIV Exodus 6
[2] God also said to Moses, "I am the LORD. [3] I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God [Almighty, but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them.] [or"Almighty, and by my name the LORD did I not let myself be known to them?"] [4] I also established my covenant with them to give them the land of Canaan, where they lived as aliens. [5] Moreover, I have heard the groaning of the Israelites, whom the Egyptians are enslaving, and I have remembered my covenant.

[6] "Therefore, say to the Israelites: 'I am the LORD , and I will bring you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians.​
Other "more fitting" translations have been proposed.
If you have any evidence that the Phillistines arrived at around 2100 BCE I'm curious to see it. I've read a slew of scholars who put the arrival at around 2100 BCE.
Click to expand...
I'm not historian or archeologoist, but I do what most of them do: dig, read, and try to understand. My sources advocate that:
  1. The word Phillistine is translated as "sea people" and may be loosely applied a variety of ethnic groups.
  2. Phillistine (in the Pentateuch) most likely refers to a small ethnic group which may be dated back to as early as 1600 B.C. as opposed to...
  3. The Phillistines refferred to in the Rameses III references, who may be a later lineage of th(is)ese (if at all the same) group(s).
Many fundamentalists claim that it's innerant and whatnot which I think is silly.
Click to expand...
The Bible is inerrant as God's Word to man; man's interpretation of it is another matter.
 
1 Corinthians 11:14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him

What about the guy on the cross? Aren't his hairs are long?
 
Hi MarcAC,

"it might not mean what you think it says, especially when "contradictions" arise."

I assume when the Bible refers to Satan doing something (inciting a census in this case) it means what it says (Satan did something). I also assume when it says "God did something" it means "God did something".

You seem to be saying that whenever the Bible contradicts itself it doesn't mean what it says. I assume when the Bible agrees with itself it does mean what it says?

I think you're willing to distort the obvious meanings in order to support your ideas about the Bible. This puts you in the postition of delibrately distorting the word of God....if the Bible is indeed the word of God.

"Because I believe the Bible to be the internally consistent Word of God to man?"

It is nothing of the sort......"Internally consistant" I mean. You refer to outright contradictions as "paradoxes". You are distorting the meanings of words ("contradiction" in this case) in order to support your assertions.

Your belief has nothing to do with what the Bible says. The Bible has many examples of contradictions. Don't get me wrong......I find the Bible to be full of profound truths but it is what it is......a funky collection of writings from the ancient Near East.

"thus the alternative interpretation of the statement in Exodus 6:3 as an implied question"

Exodus 6:3 is quite clear. It's a pronouncement rather than a question.

"Other "more fitting" translations have been proposed."

I've got about 6 translations lying around the house. Two of them have detailed descriptions of how they were derived. What do you mean by "more fitting"? Do you mean that they support your assertion more than other translations?

"Phillistine (in the Pentateuch) most likely refers to a small ethnic group which may be dated back to as early as 1600 B.C. as opposed to..."

Are you saying that Abraham was around in 1600 BCE?

"man's interpretation of it is another matter"

I'm inclined to agree with W.F. Albright when he said: "It says what it says". In one place it says God incited David while in another it says that Satan inspired him. Your interpretation of these passages seems to have little to do with what the Bible says.
 
Throckmorton said:
I assume when the Bible refers to Satan doing something (inciting a census in this case) it means what it says (Satan did something). I also assume when it says "God did something" it means "God did something".
Click to expand...
Me too; how it is achieved is another matter entirely. As stated above it is all a consequence of the assignation of final authority by the author(s) of the Biblical text. God does not tempt and God does not "cause people to sin". God may suspend His influence and leave you to the mercy of the Serpent if "you so request" by your actions and decisions.
You seem to be saying that whenever the Bible contradicts itself it doesn't mean what it says. I assume when the Bible agrees with itself it does mean what it says?
Click to expand...
No: I'm stating that God's Word doesn't say anything which contradicts Itself - it is the interpretations that are paradoxical. (nuance)
I think you're willing to distort the obvious meanings in order to support your ideas about the Bible. This puts you in the postition of delibrately distorting the word of God....if the Bible is indeed the word of God.
Click to expand...
OED Online paradox v.
2. a. A statement or proposition which on the face of it seems self-contradictory, absurd, or at variance with common sense, though, on investigation or when explained, it may prove to be well-founded (or, according to some, though it is essentially true). spec. in Literary Criticism.​
contradiction
3. A statement that contradicts or denies the truth or correctness of another.​
What am I distorting? I simply state the statements are paradoxical because they only appear contradictory.
It is nothing of the sort......"Internally consistant" I mean. You refer to outright contradictions as "paradoxes". You are distorting the meanings of words ("contradiction" in this case) in order to support your assertions.
Click to expand...
Please illustrate how I achieve this feat. The only thing which will allow a differentiation between a paradox and contradiction is knowledge: contradictions may "evolve" into paradoxes when additional knowledge is acquired.
Your belief has nothing to do with what the Bible says. The Bible has many examples of contradictions. Don't get me wrong......I find the Bible to be full of profound truths but it is what it is......a funky collection of writings from the ancient Near East.
Click to expand...
We are all entitled to our assertions; I do attest that my view above still holds and maybe be directly applied to your view of "contradictions" in the Bible.
I've got about 6 translations lying around the house. Two of them have detailed descriptions of how they were derived. What do you mean by "more fitting"? Do you mean that they support your assertion more than other translations?
Click to expand...
No, more fitting in this sense referred to the proponents conjecture - there are also a few lying around the internet.
Are you saying that Abraham was around in 1600 BCE?
Click to expand...
No; that the Sea Peoples may be dated as far back as that time in history and most probably weren't returned to earth by spaceships so may have been around before that. In fact who knows, maybe the Bible has the earliest evidence of them yet! :eek:
"It says what it says".
Click to expand...
Of course it does.
Your interpretation of these passages seems to have little to do with what the Bible says.
Click to expand...
It does have more to do with what the Bible says than what the two isolated passages themselves say. You seem to be advocating that two passages are the Bible; isolate two sentences from the whole paragraph, ignore the rest of the paragraph, and conclude they "contradict" - thus my justified preference of the word paradox in such a case.
 
Hi MarcAC,

"You seem to be advocating that two passages are the Bible; isolate two sentences from the whole paragraph, ignore the rest of the paragraph, and conclude they "contradict"

I'm doing nothing of the sort. You are either extremely confused or you're going in for gross distortion on purpose.

When the Bible says that Satan incited David to take a census I assume it means just that.....Satan inspired David to take a census. There is nothing in the paragraphs that follow to indicate that Satan didn't inspire David to take a census or that God told Satan to incite David.

When the Bible says that God incited David to take a census I assume that it means just that......God inspired David to take a census. There is nothing in the paragraphs that follow to indicate that God didn't incite David to take a census or that Satan told God to tell David to take a census.

You're claiming that the Bible says something that it clearly doesn't say "God told Satan to inspire David to take a census."

"God does not tempt and God does not "cause people to sin".

According to the Bible God does cause people to sin. "And I also gave them laws not good and rules by which they could not live, defiling them by their gifts, in that they delivered up every firts issue of the wonmb so that I might desolate them, so that they might know I am YHWH."-Ezekiel 20:25-26

God also leads people to sin in Ezekiel 14:9.

" it is the interpretations that are paradoxical."

Once again I assert that when the Bible says "Satan incited David to take a census" it means that Satan incited David to take a census. If it doesn't say "God told Satan to incite David" I assume it doesn't mean that "God told Satan to incite David".

The interpretation in this case is very easy but you seem a bit confused.

"I simply state the statements are paradoxical because they only appear contradictory."

The statements in question are contradictory by definition. The statements in question "conflict".

"contradictions may "evolve" into paradoxes when additional knowledge is acquired."

That's complete nonsense in this case. The Bible says what it says. The statements in question are showing no signs of evolving.


" most probably weren't returned to earth by spaceships so may have been around before that. "

You'll say almost anything to avoid aknowledging overwhelming evidence won't you?
 
Throckmorton said:
Hi MarcAC, I'm doing nothing of the sort...
Once again I assert that when the Bible says "Satan incited David to take a census" it means that Satan incited David to take a census. If it doesn't say "God told Satan to incite David" I assume it doesn't mean that "God told Satan to incite David".
Click to expand...
Simply because you don't take the Bible as one congruent whole. I and many others who propose simple solutions based on other sections of the Bible do. In fact, when taken as a whole (as opposed to how it is apparently taken by you) the Bible is congruent. It says what it says.

Goodbye Throckmorton.
 
Last edited:
Hi MarcAC,

"based on other sections of the Bible"

What "sections" are you talking about? Do you have any examples of scripture that support your assertion that God told Satan to incite David to take a census?

"you don't take the Bible as one congruent whole."

I think what you mean is "when reading the Bible one should ignore the many obvious contradictions".

I don't think you have examples from scripture that support your assertion about Satan inciting David. I'm calling you on this one MarcAC. It's time to show your hand here or admit that you've got nothing.
 
MarcAC's links included a site dedicated to apologetics. I'm afraid I find apologetics a deeply disreputable philosophy, intellectually.

Non-[Theists/Christians] will have tons of problems when people seek some solution to a biblical paradox; simply because they don't have faith in God. If they did have faith then they'd try to find a non-contradictory solution.
Click to expand...
The problem I find with all such attitudes from Fundamentalists and apologists is that it defines God's will as "don't think for yourself, ignore the contradictions and believe, brother!" If I believed in God, I would hope that the God I believed in despised such attitudes. God gave us reason, (I would say), so use it.

There is no contradiction in the Bible that needs resolving by any other solution than "it was written by fallible human beings, while at the same time includes important moral, philosophical and spiritual teaching and wisdom".

For those in the know, thamus.org appears to have died. After some time I found where the was re-weblished, otherwise How to be a Bible Apologist could have been lost forever. It seems the Evil Atheist Conspiracy has a new home. Long may they prosper there!
 
Last edited:
Haha, bravo to the creators of the "How to be a Bible Apologist" site.

What will it take to teach you Christians...

Surely something greater than an act of God....
 
Throckmorton said:
...What "sections" are you talking about? Do you have any examples of scripture that support your assertion that God told Satan to incite David to take a census?... I don't think you have examples from scripture that support your assertion about Satan inciting David. I'm calling you on this one MarcAC. It's time to show your hand here or admit that you've got nothing.
Click to expand...
I advise you to look to the first post you replied to... I have noticed your penchant to elliminate the most important aspects of my posts and focus on the inconsequential parts. It might not be that you don't think, you just don't read.

Goodbye Throckmorton.

101 CLEARED UP "Contradictions" in the Bible. [:D]
 
Silas said:
The problem I find with all such attitudes from Fundamentalists and apologists is that it defines God's will as "don't think for yourself, ignore the contradictions and believe, brother!" If I believed in God, I would hope that the God I believed in despised such attitudes. God gave us reason, (I would say), so use it.
Click to expand...
Actually such attitudes recognise God's Will as the supreme authority, and justifiably so: if an all loving God indeed exists and the authors of the texts which comprise the Bible did have faith in that God we may surely conclude that the Bible, as it is, is God's message to man, through man. Thus we use our intellects and rationale to explore potential solutions: skepticism is an abandonment of the intellect. It is simply this: "Hey something's odd here. O.k.! Mooooooving on!"
There is no contradiction in the Bible that needs resolving by any other solution than "it was written by fallible human beings, while at the same time includes important moral, philosophical and spiritual teaching and wisdom".
Click to expand...
A skeptic's attitude. No intellect involved. Add God exists to that and you will search for the true message behind that fallibility using your God given intellect. I'm sure that God as He exists is reviled by the skeptic's lazy attitude.
 
Hi MarcAC,

"In fact, when taken as a whole (as opposed to how it is apparently taken by you) the Bible is congruent."

You don't have any examples of Bible versus that show explain the God-Satan-David contradictions do you?

You claim (falsely) that I don't understand the Bible well enough to understand your claims. Your claim is based on no evidence whatsoever right MarcAC?

You're unwilling to admit what the Bible clearly says. Taking it "as a whole" doesn't change what it says.
 
How about, google Thomas Paine, and go down to the link for the infidel site. Then, read his book/pamphlet "The Age of Reason". All the contradictions one could desire.

You do not disprove the bible by going about it's different forms and pointing out the contradictions between! You take one bible and point out all the contradictions within it, comparing it to itself. That is what Thomas Paine does, and he does a brilliant job of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top