Bible Contradictions Explained

[Son of Rea]

There are many websites devoted to defending the Bible and all of it's contradictions. After visiting a number of them, I realized how pointless it is to argue the points. Even the most obvious contradictions are explained away (ex: one verse says 700. Another, speaking of the same quantity, says 7000).

Normal people, or moderate Christians don't care about these errors. But even one tiny error could put a big dent in the literalists' belief.

Anyway, I've realized that I could explain away ANY apparent contradiction, not just with the Bible, as this video illustrates: tinyurl.com/c5vcf2

Sorry...can't post links yet.

[666]

Sorry...can't post links yet.

Here you are...

2bT3ibQs6Qg

[Lord Emsworth]

Sure, you can explain away errors and/or contradictions, but in the process you'll also reduce the biblical stories and books to rubble. If literalists are happy with such textual ruins then that is they're problem.

[LarianLeQuella]

Sure, you can explain away errors and/or contradictions, but in the process you'll also reduce the biblical stories and books to rubble. If literalists are happy with such textual ruins then that is they're* problem.

* their :p

[Son of Rea]

Thanks for posting that link.
Almost...able...to...post links myself...

[Lord Emsworth]

* their :p

And you know what ... Initially I wrote "there" but caught the mistake and changed it - to "they're." *facepalm*

[Radrook]

Sure, you can explain away errors and/or contradictions, but in the process you'll also reduce the biblical stories and books to rubble. If literalists are happy with such textual ruins then that is they're problem.


How does it ruin the text to explain what might merely be a perceived contradiction? Many people see contradictions where there are none and need to be informed. How does that ruin the text for them?

Of course I don't doubt that some might feel the text has been ruined when it's apparent contradiction or contradictions vanish. However, others are grateful for the clarifications.

[Rodibidably]

How does it ruin the text to explain what might merely be a perceived contradiction? Many people see contradictions where there are none and need to be informed. How does that ruin the text for them?
It sall depends on how much the text must be distorted...

If you distort the text in such a way as to claim that "the morning and the evening are a day" means a few billion years, you are clearly changing it to the point of absuirdity.

If you distort the text in such a way as to make 30/10 = 3.141569... you're clearly changing it to the point of absuirdity.

If you distort the text ot make 700 = 7000, you're clearly changing it to the point of absuirdity.

[Steven Howard]

I think I can tell who watched the video and who didn't.

[Radrook]

It sall depends on how much the text must be distorted...

If you distort the text in such a way as to claim that "the morning and the evening are a day" means a few billion years, you are clearly changing it to the point of absurdity.

If you distort the text in such a way as to make 30/10 = 3.141569... you're clearly changing it to the point of absurdity.

If you distort the text ot make 700 = 7000, you're clearly changing it to the point of absuirdity.

So what you are saying is if you find the explanations unacceptable then the text has been distorted. You know, I have visited various sites which attempt to clarify seemingly contradictory passages and came away with the impression that they do a hell of a good job in removing confusion. Sometimes the perception is based on lack of knowledge concerning the original languages, a sloppy translation, ignorance of the historical setting and culture, or simply unfamiliarity with the acceptable writing styles and customs of the time. Now when I approach such sites I don't do so with an attitude of blindly accepting everything simply because they say so. If indeed the explanation is shaky, I withhold judgment. But if the explanation fits well within the acceptable parameters of good scholarship, then I have no cause to reject or suspect it and I don't.

But of course others are far harder to convince. The question really is, are we convinced because we feel we should be or because the explanation is acceptable. Do we insist on not being convinced because it's unacceptable or are we being irrationally stubborn?
If we are honest with ourselves we will know just what our motives are and hopefully readjust our thinking accordingly.

[MIKILLINI]

Some of the Gospels had differing accounts (Tim Callahan pointed this out in another thread) of the baptism of Jesus. I was wondering if Radrook could explain why these accounts vary.

For example, at Jesus' baptism by John the Baptizer, Mark says Jesus SAW the heavens opened and a voice from heaven saying "YOU are my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased." The experience is entirely subjective. In Matthew, the heavens were "opened to him," and the voice says, "THIS is my beloved son . . ." making the voice speak to the people present and thus becoming objective. Luke still says the voice addresses Jesus ("You are my beloved son . . ."), but has the opening of the heavens presented as an objective fact. John doesn't even have John baptize Jesus. So which of the gospels got it right? They can't all be variations of the same truth, since they disagree.

I might add that the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus also vary from gospel to gospel. So, did Jesus appear to nobody (Mark); to the disciples on a mountain after they went back to Galilee (Matthew); to two men on the road to Emmaus, then to the disciples while they were still in Jerusalem (Luke); first to Mary Magdalene, then to the disciples in Jerusalem, then on the shore of the Sea of Galilee (John); or first to Peter, then the 12 (Judas too?) and eventually to more than 500 people at one time (1 Corinthians)?

[Radrook]

Some of the Gospels had differing accounts (Tim Callahan pointed this out in another thread) of the baptism of Jesus. I was wondering if Radrook could explain why these accounts vary.

For example, at Jesus' baptism by John the Baptizer, Mark says Jesus SAW the heavens opened and a voice from heaven saying "YOU are my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased." The experience is entirely subjective. In Matthew, the heavens were "opened to him," and the voice says, "THIS is my beloved son . . ." making the voice speak to the people present and thus becoming objective. Luke still says the voice addresses Jesus ("You are my beloved son . . ."), but has the opening of the heavens presented as an objective fact. John doesn't even have John baptize Jesus. So which of the gospels got it right? They can't all be variations of the same truth, since they disagree.

I might add that the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus also vary from gospel to gospel. So, did Jesus appear to nobody (Mark); to the disciples on a mountain after they went back to Galilee (Matthew); to two men on the road to Emmaus, then to the disciples while they were still in Jerusalem (Luke); first to Mary Magdalene, then to the disciples in Jerusalem, then on the shore of the Sea of Galilee (John); or first to Peter, then the 12 (Judas too?) and eventually to more than 500 people at one time (1 Corinthians)?

Why would I waste my time repeating ther explanations I assume you have already read and rejected at those sites? But if indeed you haven't, you'll find that they go into fine detail in regards to your question concerning the contradictions you perceive as insurmountable in the gospels. If after having read their explanations you still disagree, then that is a decision to which you are entitled.

[Rodibidably]

So what you are saying is if you find the explanations unacceptable then the text has been distorted.
Actually that is not at all what I said.
I said that if the text has to be read in such a way as to change the meaning of words to something that those words have never meant in any other context, then that reading of the text is by definition a distortion.

If I tell you that I have 1 apple and you have 2 apples and together we have 4 apples
And then later I tell you that 2 REALLY means 3 in this context, when at no other time has 2 ever meant 3
The logical conclusion is that I am lying, or delusional

You know, I have visited various sites which attempt to clarify seemingly contradictory passages and came away with the impression that they do a hell of a good job in removing confusion.
I have read some of these sites as well. And my general view has been that they are bending over backwards to make things fit into their preconcieved notions, and they are either intentionally lying, or they are truely deluded in order to belive some of their own arguments.

I also have typically come away finding it humerous that an all knowing deity could write a book that is so hard for his creation (mankind) to understand.

And if it matters, I felt this same when when I was trying to believe as well as after I gave up. For many years I felt it was a problem with me that I did not believe in god, and I studied the bible, koran, etc in an attempt to find what it was that others believed in. If anything this study pushed me evne further away form a belief in god.

Sometimes the perception is based on lack of knowledge concerning the original languages, a sloppy translation, ignorance of the historical setting and culture, or simply unfamiliarity with the acceptable writing styles and customs of the time. Now when I approach such sites I don't do so with an attitude of blindly accepting everything simply because they say so. If indeed the explanation is shaky, I withhold judgment. But if the explanation fits well within the acceptable parameters of good scholarship, then I have no cause to reject or suspect it and I don't.
I admit, I'm not a biblical scholar. But I am capable of reading text and determining what it means. Such as if you read a book that says the mornign and the evening are one day, and this means "24 hours", then unless you're given a clue in the text that this means something else, it's fair to assume that when you see this text it is refering to a 24 hour period.

But of course others are far harder to convince. The question really is, are we convinced because we feel we should be or because the explanation is acceptable. Do we insist on not being convinced because it's unacceptable or are we being irrationally stubborn?
If we are honest with ourselves we will know just what our motives are and hopefully readjust our thinking accordingly.
You're right there are many reasons for people accepting or rejecting information.
And you're right that people should be very careful about this, so they do not let their own biases color their interpritation (or at least limit that).

[Arkayik]

Sometimes the perception is based on lack of knowledge concerning the original languages, a sloppy translation, ignorance of the historical setting and culture, or simply unfamiliarity with the acceptable writing styles and customs of the time.

I do so tire of this apology for "the word of god". Piss-poor way to run a universe if people are left squabbling over the rulebook...

[Wowbagger]

I think we will need stronger evidence that the Bible is, somehow, mostly correct, than the mere "clearing up of contradictions", in order to accept that the Bible is mostly correct.

Otherwise, the exercise is no more important than clearing up contradictions in the Star Wars novels (and movies, for that matter).

[Lord Emsworth]

How does it ruin the text to explain what might merely be a perceived contradiction? Many people see contradictions where there are none and need to be informed. How does that ruin the text for them?

Of course I don't doubt that some might feel the text has been ruined when it's apparent contradiction or contradictions vanish. However, others are grateful for the clarifications.

Sorry, I was unclear. It does not ruin a text in principle. In the specific case of the bibilical texts it does, especially if people insist that all those individual texts be forcefitted together and/or forcefitted to agree to (an abberation of) modern science.

But as I said ... not my problem.

[666]

I think I can tell who watched the video and who didn't.
My thought exactly!

[kedo1981]

The 8 hundred pound gorilla in the room is this.
It the Bible is what it claims it is, and it is what the Christians who worship the BIBLE (yes you do) claim it is
IT WOULD NOT NEED EXPLAINING

[Autolite]

I realized how pointless it is to argue the points.

This point pretty much defines all Theist vs Atheist argument. Except perhaps for self amusement, in the end it is all quite futile...

[Cainkane1]

I can explain how it can be 7000 in one verse and 700 in another. God wants us to add the numbers and then divide by two. 3850 being the number he really means.

[Hokulele]

My thought exactly!


Heh. I did like the "God = Love" contradiction.

[Radrook]

Actually that is not at all what I said.
I said that if the text has to be read in such a way as to change the meaning of words to something that those words have never meant in any other context, then that reading of the text is by definition a distortion.

If I tell you that I have 1 apple and you have 2 apples and together we have 4 apples
And then later I tell you that 2 REALLY means 3 in this context, when at no other time has 2 ever meant 3
The logical conclusion is that I am lying, or delusional

Agreed! However, in the case of the specific example you are mentioning two and one has meant other than three.


I have read some of these sites as well. And my general view has been that they are bending over backwards to make things fit into their preconcieved notions, and they are either intentionally lying, or they are truely deluded in order to belive some of their own arguments.

And you are entitled to your opinion.



I also have typically come away finding it humerous that an all knowing deity could write a book that is so hard for his creation (mankind) to understand.

What was meant to be understood has been understood. The reason why mankind is in the condition its in and the way out of it. That is the book's prime directive and it fulfilled it.

And if it matters, I felt this same when when I was trying to believe as well as after I gave up. For many years I felt it was a problem with me that I did not believe in god, and I studied the bible, koran, etc in an attempt to find what it was that others believed in. If anything this study pushed me evne further away form a belief in god.

Perhaps you are asking more of the Bible than it was designed to give? Like expecting a book of algebbra to teach morality. If the algebra book accomplishes its purpose, the teaching of algebra, then everything else is irrelevant.


I admit, I'm not a biblical scholar. But I am capable of reading text and determining what it means. Such as if you read a book that says the mornign and the evening are one day, and this means "24 hours", then unless you're given a clue in the text that this means something else, it's fair to assume that when you see this text it is refering to a 24 hour period.

But biblically, the word "day" is repeatedly used to mean more that just twenty-four hours just as it is used today when we say in our Grandfather's day.


You're right there are many reasons for people accepting or rejecting information. And you're right that people should be very careful about this, so they do not let their own biases color their interpritation (or at least limit that).

Yep!

[Radrook]

It sall depends on how much the text must be distorted...

If you distort the text in such a way as to claim that "the morning and the evening are a day" means a few billion years, you are clearly changing it to the point of absuirdity.

If you distort the text in such a way as to make 30/10 = 3.141569... you're clearly changing it to the point of absuirdity.

If you distort the text ot make 700 = 7000, you're clearly changing it to the point of absuirdity.

It all depends on the explanation given. I came accross the numerical explanaytions you mentioned and none of them claim that 700=7000 or mangle mathematics in that absurd way. They were explanations based on the personal viewpoints of those reporting the numbers and what they each chose to focus on.

Neither have I ever heard anyone say that the days of creation were billions of years each. What I have encountered is what you might call the gappist explanation where the period prior to the commencement of the earth preparatory creative days is said to allow for billions of years. Actually, if we read the Genesis account carefully, these two periods are clearly separated.

[Radrook]

The 8 hundred pound gorilla in the room is this.
It the Bible is what it claims it is, and it is what the Christians who worship the BIBLE (yes you do) claim it is
IT WOULD NOT NEED EXPLAINING

I thought the limit for male silverback gorrillas was 600 pounds.

BTW
Why wouldn't it need explanation?

[Radrook]

Sorry, I was unclear. It does not ruin a text in principle. In the specific case of the bibilical texts it does, especially if people insist that all those individual texts be forcefitted together and/or forcefitted to agree to (an abberation of) modern science.

But as I said ... not my problem.

Fitted to an aberration of modern science?

[Rodibidably]

Perhaps you are asking more of the Bible than it was designed to give? Like expecting a book of algebbra to teach morality. If the algebra book accomplishes its purpose, the teaching of algebra, then everything else is irrelevant.
But if I was reading an algebra book ,and for some reason it claimed the Edgar Allen Poe wrote Hamlet (who is clearly false) I would question the author to the point of probably buying a DIFFERENT math book.
While it may be true that English Lit has nothing to do with learning math, if the author makes such a glaring mistake, I am going to call into question his abilty to teach any subject.

But biblically, the word "day" is repeatedly used to mean more that just twenty-four hours just as it is used today when we say in our Grandfather's day.
Other then Genesis 1, how many times does the phrase "the morning and the evening were one day" have any meaning other than 24 hours?

[Foster Zygote]

One of the most blatant inconsistencies is the contradictory genealogies of Joseph presented in Matthew and Luke. I've seen a number of attempts to explain this away by claiming that one or the other represents the ancestry of Mary, yet none of these arguments stand up to scrutiny.

[Lord Emsworth]

Fitted to an aberration of modern science?

Yes, an aberration (you got the right spelling).

[fromdownunder]

What was meant to be understood has been understood. The reason why mankind is in the condition its in and the way out of it. That is the book's prime directive and it fulfilled it.



I doubt this to be true - perhaps you should redefine mankind. Only around 33% of the current worlds population have accepted the implications of the Judeo/Christian writings, which is if you are correct, the Prime Directive, and until the European expansion into the east, the Pacific and the Americas, the figure would have been be far smaller.

Some have rejected it, but many would have never even heard of Jesus in the sense that he is promoted in the Bible.

If the purpose of the Bible, as you appear to infer, was for all of mankind to be made aware of the way out, and perhaps the punishments/rewards involved, then it has failed utterly.

And, without looking for a quote, I understand that all of mankind was supposed to be informed of the Word - either somebody else knows the verses I am referring to, I will have to (hopefully) find the versea if asked, or it simply does not exist. Because millions of people would have died in the past 2,000 years having never heard the word.

Norm

[Robert Oz]

Other then Genesis 1, how many times does the phrase "the morning and the evening were one day" have any meaning other than 24 hours?


I've addressed this in other threads. The Bible makes it quite clear that the "days" it speaks of in Genesis should be read as 24-hour days.


The difference is here:

Genesis

1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.


Exodus

20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.


The Bible is quite clear in identifying the six days of creation as 24-hour days. The days are preceded by "the evening and the morning" and God identified a 24-hour day as the sabbath day because he "rested on the seventh day".

Radrook has, on multiple occasions in the past, said that the Bible clearly states when it is being allegorical. Since the passage from Exodus does not clearly identify the sabbath day as a notional symbol for a period longer than 24-hours, the reasonable conclusion is the universe was created in six 24-hour days.

I would be very interested to hear an alternative reconciliation between Genesis and Exodus that doesn't resort to an unwarranted assumption that the sabbath day is notional.

[Tricky]

If the Bible is what it claims it is, and it is what the Christians who worship the BIBLE (yes you do) claim it is
IT WOULD NOT NEED EXPLAINING

Why wouldn't it need explanation?
The obvious logic is that if God is the most intelligent being in the universe, He should be able to communicate in an unambiguous way.

The only alternative I can think of, if we accept that God is the most intelligent being in the universe, is that He is deliberately fostering confusion.

[aviolet4u]

yeah God seems to really like messin with his creations or maybe he just doesn't care...or wait maybe he doesn't exist!

Anyway you look at it, we're pretty screwed. :D