Bible fallacies and internal contradictions

[TimCallahan]

Below is a post from Mulder on a thread I started about why a perfect God would create:

1) There are no "fallacies" in the Bible. There are arrogant non-believers who superimpose their view of what they think God should be on the Bible and interpret any discrepancies as "fallacies" or "contradictions", but the Biblical narrative makes perfect sense from the standpoint of a God who is both perfectly loving AND perfectly just.

2) The Bible is replete with fulfilled prophecies. This is one of the testament to it's validity, particularly the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies in the person of Jesus.

We're already discussing whether any biblical prophecies were, in fact, fulfilled on a longstanding thread started by DOC. Therefore, I'd like to devote this thread to Bible fallacies and contradictions. I'm interested to see what either Mulder or DOC will say on these subjects. Let's begin with an internal contradiction from the Old Testament and another from the New Testament.

Concerning the creation of human beings, Gen. 1:27 says (emphasis added):

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

This takes place after God has created every other living thing, all the plants and all the animals. Yet, in Genesis 2 God first creates man (Heb. ha Adam "the person"), then creates all the animals, then creates Eve from Adam's rib.

The rationale used by biblical inerrantists is that Genesis 1 gives a general overview, while Genesis 2 goes into specific details. However, this would not explain why Genesis 1 has humans created male and female together after every other life form has been created, while Genesis 2 had Adam created , then the animals, then Eve, out of Adam's rib. Ergo Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 contradict each other.

In the New Testament, the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke contradict each other in just about every particular. Let us, however, deal with only one major contradiction, for the sake of simplicity and clarity: Matthew says Joseph and Mary are already living in Bethlehem when Jesus is born, flee to Egypt to escape Herod's soldiers and, still leery of persecution, resettle in Nazareth, in Galilee. Luke, however, says Joseph and Mary were originally living in Nazareth, and only went to Bethlehem because of the requirements of a Roman census (this, BTW, is absolute nonsense). They return to Nazareth because that's their home. Luke makes no mention of Herod's slaughter of the innocents, and Matthew make no mention of a Roman census. These two nativity stories contradict each other.

Mulder and / or DOC: Care to comment?

[Tony]

My favorite Bible contradictions involve the inconsistencies between the verses that say to fear god, the ones that say god is love and the ones that say that love and fear cannot coexist.

See this:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/feargod.html

Quote:

1) There are no "fallacies" in the Bible. There are arrogant non-believers who superimpose their view of what they think God should be on the Bible and interpret any discrepancies as "fallacies" or "contradictions",

It is always cute when people who think they belong to the one-true religion and that everyone else is going to hell call other people "arrogant".

Quote:

but the Biblical narrative makes perfect sense from the standpoint of a God who is both perfectly loving AND perfectly just.

How does someone who isn't a god who is perfectly loving and perfectly just know the Bible makes perfect sense from the standpoint of a god who is both perfectly loving AND perfectly just?

Quote:

2) The Bible is replete with fulfilled prophecies. This is one of the testament to it's validity, particularly the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies in the person of Jesus.

The "fulfilled prophecies" are a testament to the fact that the writers of the New Testament wrote their books to comport to what was written in the Old Testament.

[Delvo]

God never gets tired and rests, except for when he does. (Is 40:28, Gen 2:2-3)

God's anger lasts forever but doesn't last forever. (Micah 7:18, Jer 17:4)

You are justified and achieve salvation by your deeds, not by faith... and also by faith, not by your deeds. (Gal 2:16, Matt 19:17, Rom 3:28, James 2:24)

It's impossible to see God and nobody ever has, except for those who have, and it killed all of them, except that it didn't. (Gen 32:30, Ex 33:20, Gen 12:7, Ex 33:11, John 1:18, Ex 24:9-11, 1 Tim 6:16)

God claims responsibility for all that is bad and evil in the world in Isaiah 45:7, contradicting all claims anywhere else that God is entirely good and loving and evil came from anywhere else and God doesn't like having evil around.

He's described as merciful, gracious, slow to anger, and loving in Exodus 34:6, which contradicts the huge stream of his demands for various nasty punishments elsewhere and the entire warped basis for the warped Christian description of justice through holy blood sacrifice (not to mention the violence he demands against the innocent not as punishment but just because they're in the way, and the smaller things he allows to happen but could have prevented, like making the blind people Jesus healed endure blindness for as long as they did before meeting Jesus).

Wealth is a blessing, but woe unto those who have it! (Luke 6:24 & 14:33, Psalm 112:1-3)

When Jesus died, the curtain in the temple had already ripped itself in half, but it hadn't yet and wouldn't until he was dead. (Mark 15:37-38, Luke 23:45-46, Matt 27:50-51)

Two different groups of soldiers were the ones who put the royal robe on Jesus. (Luke 23:11, Matt 27:27-28, John 19:1-2)

Jesus's rampage in the temple happened before the hissy-fit at the fig tree, but the fig tree episode came first. (Matt 21:12-19, Mark 11:12-17)

What did Saul's traveling companions see & hear when Saul was having his revelation? (Acts 9:7, 22:9)

Jesus is the only person who ever ascended to Heaven alive, but someone else did it first. (2 Kings 2:11, John 3:13)

David took two different numbers of horsemen from Hadadezer in the same incident. (2 Sam 8:4, 1 Chron 18:4)

He also paid two different prices for the same threshing floor. (1 Chron 21:25, 2 Sam 24:24)

Of David's three mightiest men, either two different ones are called the "chief" among them, or one man had two different names and his claim to fame was having killed two different numbers of other men with his spear. (2 Sam 23:8, 1 Chron 11:11)

Both thieves on the crosses near Jesus reviled him, but only one did and the other rebuked him for it. (Luke 23:39-42, Mark 15:32, Matt 27:44)

Jesus healed two blind men on the road to Jericho, but it was only one. (Luke 18:35-43, Mark 15:32, Matt 27:44)

And the biggest one of all because it's the central, most important story in Christianity, the one you'd think they'd have the most interest in making sure they got right, is the biggest mess: different numbers of women with different names watch Jesus's tomb being opened but also discover that it was already open before they got there, and meet one man who was really two men who were really one angel, who was/were sitting, standing, and descending from Heaven (during an earthquake which didn't happen) & then opening the tomb that was already open. (Matt 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20)

The centurion with the sick, dying servant sent some Jewish elders to ask for help, then sent some friends to talk to Jesus when he got closer... but he also went out to find Jesus himself without sending anybody. (Matthew 8:5-8, Luke 7:2-6)

There are ZERO blameless, righteous people, NOT EVEN ONE (Romans 3:10)... not even Noah (Genesis 6:8-9 & 7:1), Job (Job 2:3), Zacharias & Elizabeth (Luke 1:5-6), or James's entire audience (James 5:16).

[ddt]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

In the New Testament, the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke contradict each other in just about every particular. Let us, however, deal with only one major contradiction, for the sake of simplicity and clarity: Matthew says Joseph and Mary are already living in Bethlehem when Jesus is born, flee to Egypt to escape Herod's soldiers and, still leery of persecution, resettle in Nazareth, in Galilee. Luke, however, says Joseph and Mary were originally living in Nazareth, and only went to Bethlehem because of the requirements of a Roman census (this, BTW, is absolute nonsense). They return to Nazareth because that's their home. Luke makes no mention of Herod's slaughter of the innocents, and Matthew make no mention of a Roman census. These two nativity stories contradict each other.

Aww, Tim, that's my favourite contradiction. In this thread, AvalonXQ pieced together a timeline for Jesus' birth, incorporating all elements from both Matthew and Luke, which is - well - justs possible. Of course, he failed to explain
1) why Luke and Matthew mention altogether different events;
2) why Joseph was all over the place as a Bond-like globetrotter with a highly pregnant wife and later a toddler;
3) the time warp: Matthew's story takes place in 4BC and Luke's story in 6AD.

Also the small stuff in there: the wise men from the east followed a star in the East from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. Bethlehem is to the South of Jerusalem. How does that work?

And then there's the last words of Christ:
- Father, why hast Thou forsaken me (Mark, Matthew)
- Father, into your hands I commit my spirit (Luke)
- it is finished (John)

And then there's the number of witnesses of the resurrection (already mentioned by Delvo).

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

Mulder and / or DOC: Care to comment?

Don't forget to mention AvalonXQ, he's also inerrantist.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Tony

My favorite Bible contradictions involve the inconsistencies between the verses that say to fear god, the ones that say god is love and the ones that say that love and fear cannot coexist.

1) God is love
2) Love is not jealous
3) God is jealous

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by ddt

Also the small stuff in there: the wise men from the east followed a star in the East from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. Bethlehem is to the South of Jerusalem. How does that work?

I dont think Mathew says that

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

Concerning the creation of human beings, Gen. 1:27 says (emphasis added):

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

This takes place after God has created every other living thing, all the plants and all the animals. Yet, in Genesis 2 God first creates man (Heb. ha Adam "the person"), then creates all the animals, then creates Eve from Adam's rib.

The rationale used by biblical inerrantists is that Genesis 1 gives a general overview, while Genesis 2 goes into specific details. However, this would not explain why Genesis 1 has humans created male and female together after every other life form has been created, while Genesis 2 had Adam created , then the animals, then Eve, out of Adam's rib. Ergo Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 contradict each other.

Chapter 2 places man in the garden, brings the (previously created) animals to him to name, and then creates woman.

The verse in chapter 2 should most accurately translate as "Now the Lord God had formed...." It does not contradict the Genesis 1 account that beasts were created before man.

[Bikewer]

Bart Ehrman goes into some detail on the NT contradictions in "Jesus, Interupted".

I actually heard some evangelist type fellow say something to the effect of..."The bible is innerant and free of contradictions. We just don't have it. The bible we have has been corrupted by man."

So, somewhere (perhaps in some Indiana Jones-type hidden tomb?) is the "real" bible, presumably written in nice, clear Engllish. With illustrations.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

BaSo, somewhere (perhaps in some Indiana Jones-type hidden tomb?) is the "real" bible, presumably written in nice, clear Engllish. With illustrations.

Hey now, this is Indiana Jones we're talking about here.

The "real" Bible would clearly be in Latin, with illuminated letters in gold leaf.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Hey now, this is Indiana Jones we're talking about here.

The "real" Bible would clearly be in Latin, with illuminated letters in gold leaf.

There is nothing real about the bible, apart from the paper it is printed on.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by MG1962

I dont think Mathew says that

The Westcott-Hort Greek text says east (ἀνατολη) (verses 2 and 9).

King James translates that faithfully. Other translations may not (e.g., NIV does not).

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

With illustrations.

Ya, but the illustrations are all in Song Of Solomon, so modern Christian churches would ban & burn it.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Hey now, this is Indiana Jones we're talking about here.

The "real" Bible would clearly be in Latin, with illuminated letters in gold leaf.

The NT would definitely be in Greek. I asked you before: what is the real text? Less than two thirds of the NT verses have less than one word difference between all manuscripts that are known.

How can you even be an inerrantist when there's no certainty on what the real text is?

And maybe you could explain at last that time warp of 10 years between Luke's and Matthew's nativity stories.

[Tony]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

The "real" Bible would clearly be in Latin, with illuminated letters in gold leaf.

Wrong! Everyone knows the "real" original Bible would be in Klingon. Like Shakespeare.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by ddt

The NT would definitely be in Greek. I asked you before: what is the real text? Less than two thirds of the NT verses have less than one word difference between all manuscripts that are known.

Isn't that equivalent to saying "about a third of NT verses have at least one word difference in at least one manuscript"?

Anyway, the question isn't whether a verse has a word difference, but whether the word difference causes a questioning of the meaning. A Christian can live their entire life according to the Bible without ever once having to make a decision that would change according to a manuscript difference.

[wakawakawaka]

is there even any evidence of herods killing of the innocents

[Nay_Sayer]

Originally Posted by ddt

The NT would definitely be in Greek. I asked you before: what is the real text? Less than two thirds of the NT verses have less than one word difference between all manuscripts that are known.

How can you even be an inerrantist when there's no certainty on what the real text is?

And maybe you could explain at last that time warp of 10 years between Luke's and Matthew's nativity stories.

I can explain the time warp in one word.

Delorean.

See the narrator of the bible is just a hapless man leaping from one biblical point to the next hoping that the next leap will be the leap home.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Isn't that equivalent to saying "about a third of NT verses have at least one word difference in at least one manuscript"?

Anyway, the question isn't whether a verse has a word difference, but whether the word difference causes a questioning of the meaning. A Christian can live their entire life according to the Bible without ever once having to make a decision that would change according to a manuscript difference.

But they don't. They should have killed me a long time ago for working on the Sabbath.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Isn't that equivalent to saying "about a third of NT verses have at least one word difference in at least one manuscript"?

Correction: more than one third of the NT verses have at least two words difference between all manuscripts.

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Anyway, the question isn't whether a verse has a word difference, but whether the word difference causes a questioning of the meaning. A Christian can live their entire life according to the Bible without ever once having to make a decision that would change according to a manuscript difference.

You set pretty low standards. Shouldn't God - omnipotent - take care His word is inerrantly relayed? And well, I would want to judge for myself if the meaning of the text is changed by the omission/insertion or changing of a word.

But you could start with saying which Greek text you think best matches.

Furthermore, I note that you have ignored my question about the 10 year time warp between Matthew's and Luke's nativity stories. That's at least the eighth time.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by ddt

Furthermore, I note that you have ignored my question about the 10 year time warp between Matthew's and Luke's nativity stories. That's at least the eighth time.

That is a cherry that the Christians leave unpicked.

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by wakawakawaka

is there even any evidence of herods killing of the innocents

No - I recall seeing an article and based on what we knew of the demographics in the area chances are we are looking at maybe half a dozen kids killed at most.........The general agreement seems to be it was a bit of propaganda

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by ddt

The Westcott-Hort Greek text says east (ἀνατολη) (verses 2 and 9).

King James translates that faithfully. Other translations may not (e.g., NIV does not).

No - Bethlehem is about 2 miles south of Jerusalem. The Magi were at least 500 miles east possible as much as 800 miles. So that sort of precision is doubtful. Given what the Magi where probably seeing, Jerusalem would the natural destination for them to seek the new king of the Jews

[ddt]

Originally Posted by MG1962

No - I recall seeing an article and based on what we knew of the demographics in the area chances are we are looking at maybe half a dozen kids killed at most.........The general agreement seems to be it was a bit of propaganda

It's highly unlikely it took place on the scale depicted. Josephus didn't mention it - and he wasn't a fan of Herod at all - nor anyone else. It seems more likely that Matthew modeled the story on Moses' birth. Isn't such a story of persecution of the hero from birth part of the standard hero myth?

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by ddt

It's highly unlikely it took place on the scale depicted. Josephus didn't mention it - and he wasn't a fan of Herod at all - nor anyone else. It seems more likely that Matthew modeled the story on Moses' birth. Isn't such a story of persecution of the hero from birth part of the standard hero myth?

I couldn't say - Mathew may have picked up on other propaganda, and linked the two events. Herod was a very hated ruler and his paranoia rivaled Stalin in its intensity. Oddly enough from an economic development point of view Herod was a bit of a genius, leading some to consider his paranoia may have been a manifestation of some underlying medical condition.

[Good Lt]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Chapter 2 places man in the garden, brings the (previously created) animals to him to name, and then creates woman.

The verse in chapter 2 should most accurately translate as "Now the Lord God had formed...." It does not contradict the Genesis 1 account that beasts were created before man.

You mean like dinosaurs and trilobites?

[dafydd]

Was anyone really expecting a Christian to admit that the bible is full of fallacies and contradictions?

[ddt]

Originally Posted by MG1962

No - Bethlehem is about 2 miles south of Jerusalem. The Magi were at least 500 miles east possible as much as 800 miles. So that sort of precision is doubtful. Given what the Magi where probably seeing, Jerusalem would the natural destination for them to seek the new king of the Jews

Make that 5 miles:

Quote:

a Palestinian city located in the central West Bank and approximately 8 kilometers (5.0 mi) south of Jerusalem, with a population of about 30,000 people.

By now it's nearly a suburb of Jerusalem due to the growth of Jerusalem, but the journey can take longer than in Jesus' time thanks to checkpoints and such.

I don't understand your "no". I said:

Originally Posted by ddt

Also the small stuff in there: the wise men from the east followed a star in the East from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. Bethlehem is to the South of Jerusalem. How does that work?

And you reacted

Originally Posted by MG1962

I dont think Mathew says that

And subsequently, I showed you that Matthew did say it. So I'd expect your answer to be "yes".

As I said, it's small stuff, but still I fail to see how a star to the east can guide you south. Matthew should have consulted a map before writing idiocy. The journey of the Magi from their origin to Jerusalem (of indeterminate length, he never says where they came from) beggars belief, as they come from the east and are guided by the same star from the east.

And then there's Matthew's eclipse on a full moon at Jesus' crucifixion.

[Nay_Sayer]

I always have this handy little chart ready;

http://sciencebasedlife.files.wordpr...sonproject.png

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Nay_Sayer

I always have this handy little chart ready;

http://sciencebasedlife.files.wordpr...sonproject.png

Anyone who says that there are no contradictions in the bible should be shown that.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by Nay_Sayer

I always have this handy little chart ready;

http://sciencebasedlife.files.wordpr...sonproject.png

Does the size of the white bars underneath the spaghetti-code-alike correspond to the lengths of the Bible chapters? What's the really long one in the middle?

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by ddt

Make that 5 miles:

By now it's nearly a suburb of Jerusalem due to the growth of Jerusalem, but the journey can take longer than in Jesus' time thanks to checkpoints and such.

I don't understand your "no". I said:

And you reacted

And subsequently, I showed you that Matthew did say it. So I'd expect your answer to be "yes".

As I said, it's small stuff, but still I fail to see how a star to the east can guide you south. Matthew should have consulted a map before writing idiocy. The journey of the Magi from their origin to Jerusalem (of indeterminate length, he never says where they came from) beggars belief, as they come from the east and are guided by the same star from the east.

And then there's Matthew's eclipse on a full moon at Jesus' crucifixion.

Sorry I was not trying to be rude

The Maji are a well established entity outside the Bible.

When they mention the star they use past tense, not current. Even when Herod questions the Maji about when it happened he asks in the past tense. The two best competing theories about the star both point to astrological interpretation. So chances are the Magi didn't even start their journey till after Christ was born.

When Herod orders the slaughter of the innocent, the Bible says young rather than infant - So even after the discussion with the Magi he is not real sure when things went down.

I actually have a bit of faith in the Magi story because what happens next rings true. The Magi realise they have caused a major oopies moment by turning up expecting to see Herod's new son.

Possibly being tipped off about the prophecy they have headed for Bethlehem found a child that fit what they were looking for, dropped the gifts and made a point to bug out without meeting Herod again.

Joesph realizes the Magi have just dropped his whole family in a world of hurt and also shoots through before Herod can get people on the ground to find this fake king of the Jews.

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

Bart Ehrman goes into some detail on the NT contradictions in "Jesus, Interupted".

I actually heard some evangelist type fellow say something to the effect of..."The bible is innerant and free of contradictions. We just don't have it. The bible we have has been corrupted by man."

So, somewhere (perhaps in some Indiana Jones-type hidden tomb?) is the "real" bible, presumably written in nice, clear Engllish. With illustrations.

.
Erasmus' first edition of his translation omitted the Trinity.
He was called out on this, but dug in his heels until forced to add a segment from a 5th Century document which was the first mention of a Trinity in his third edition.
But otherwise was quite happy to "improve the gospels"...
Ya know, seeing the original document would be nice....

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by wakawakawaka

is there even any evidence of herods killing of the innocents

.
Other than their tomb, no.
Stars don't hover over places on the earth either.
There's a new book out on the 3 Wise Men...
"Unholy Night"..
Makes the 3 guys into murderous mercenaries, from a review in the LA Times.
.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hea...-hunter-309260

[dio]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

Does the size of the white bars underneath the spaghetti-code-alike correspond to the lengths of the Bible chapters? What's the really long one in the middle?

It appears to be so. Psalms 119.

[Nay_Sayer]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

Does the size of the white bars underneath the spaghetti-code-alike correspond to the lengths of the Bible chapters? What's the really long one in the middle?

It represents the number of verses in said chapter.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by MG1962

I actually have a bit of faith in the Magi story because what happens next rings true. The Magi realise they have caused a major oopies moment by turning up expecting to see Herod's new son.

It is only a story. The legend of the birth of Jesus is a complete fabrication.

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by dafydd

It is only a story. The legend of the birth of Jesus is a complete fabrication.

Christ is not even a requirement for the Magi story to be true

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by MG1962

Christ is not even a requirement for the Magi story to be true

Everything in the bible seems to be an optional extra for Christians. They seem to regard it as a very protean document.

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Everything in the bible seems to be an optional extra for Christians. They seem to regard it as a very protean document.

What are you blathering about?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by MG1962

What are you blathering about?

I should have thought that was obvious. Christians cherry pick the bible to suit their own ends. You won't find one who really follows the teachings of Jesus.