• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The "Contradictions" in the Bible

God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years of famine?

Seven (2 Samuel 24:13)

Three (I Chronicles 21:12)

101 Contradictions in the Bible.



Response: Another long explanation.


Regarding 2 Samuel 24:13, many English translations follow the Septuagint by using “three” in place of “seven.” If this were the original reading, then we would have an example of a copyist error. It is possible for copyist errors to have crept into some documents, and since the doctrine of inerrancy only applies to the original manuscripts, such errors would have no impact on this crucial doctrine.

Not surprisingly, some critics of biblical authority present this apparent incongruity as evidence confirming their pre-committed disbelief in the inerrancy and divine inspiration of Scripture. Others cite this to justify their claim that modern copies of the biblical texts insufficiently represent the original manuscripts.

In reality, these accusations of corruption are unwarranted, and there are at least a couple of plausible solutions that do not appeal to a copyist error.

The key lies in understanding the greater context of the account. (more...)

--------------

Conclusion

The important thing to realize is that regardless of which solution we choose, the result is the same. The accusation of contradiction evaporates—all without declaring the text in error. In conclusion, these Scriptures not only are compatible, but also work together to provide additional details on this particular event.


https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/a-famine-of-three-or-seven-years/
 
Tanngrisnir said:
No, it hasn't been around for thousands of years. That you think it has pretty much exemplifies your inability to discuss it or its contents rationally or honestly.
Click to expand...


The Bible was not written in one specific year or in a single location. The Bible is a collection of writings, and the earliest ones were set down nearly 3500 years ago. So let's start at the beginning of this fascinating story.

The first five books of the Bible are attributed to Moses and are commonly called the Pentateuch (literally "five scrolls").

Moses lived between 1500 and 1300 BC, though he recounts events in the first eleven chapters of the Bible that occurred long before his time (such as the creation and the flood).

These earliest accounts were handed on from generation to generation in songs, narratives, and poetry.

In those early societies there was no writing as yet and people passed on these oral accounts with great detail and accuracy.

The earliest writing began when symbols were scratched or pressed on clay tablets. The Egyptians refined this technique and developed an early form of writing known as hieroglyphics. The Bible tells us that Moses was "educated in all the learning of the Egyptians", so he would have been familiar with the major writing systems of his time. We also read that God gave Moses "two tablets of the Testimony, the tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of God"(Exodus 31:18). All this leads to the conclusion that the earliest writings in the Bible were set down around 1400 BC.
Click to expand...
When was the Bible written? — Biblica
 
tosca1 said:
When was the Bible written? — Biblica
Click to expand...

More contradictions. First your link says the first bits of the bible were set down 3500 years ago or so. Then it says the folks then couldn't write, then it says the first bits of the bible were set down 1400 BCE. BTW, those 3500 year old bits? Those were the pagan myths mentioned earlier as the source of modern day xian mythology. Furthermore, similar pagan myths were around before that as well. Another point, Moses was no more an actual historical person than Joshua (the proper translation of Yeshua) was. Virtually no-one mentioned in the bible actually existed especially including Noah and his flood. The flood myth was contrived some thousands of years before the xians purloined it. Somehow this world-wide flood escaped the notice of other civilizations like the Chinese who have records going back that far and oddly, make no mention of such a calamity.:lamo
 
tosca1 said:
God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years of famine?

Seven (2 Samuel 24:13)

Three (I Chronicles 21:12)

101 Contradictions in the Bible.



Response: Another long explanation.


Regarding 2 Samuel 24:13, many English translations follow the Septuagint by using “three” in place of “seven.” If this were the original reading, then we would have an example of a copyist error. It is possible for copyist errors to have crept into some documents, and since the doctrine of inerrancy only applies to the original manuscripts, such errors would have no impact on this crucial doctrine.

Not surprisingly, some critics of biblical authority present this apparent incongruity as evidence confirming their pre-committed disbelief in the inerrancy and divine inspiration of Scripture. Others cite this to justify their claim that modern copies of the biblical texts insufficiently represent the original manuscripts.

In reality, these accusations of corruption are unwarranted, and there are at least a couple of plausible solutions that do not appeal to a copyist error.

The key lies in understanding the greater context of the account. (more...)

--------------

Conclusion

The important thing to realize is that regardless of which solution we choose, the result is the same. The accusation of contradiction evaporates—all without declaring the text in error. In conclusion, these Scriptures not only are compatible, but also work together to provide additional details on this particular event.


https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/a-famine-of-three-or-seven-years/
Click to expand...

:lamo Gee, that is a fine example of rationalizing. However it is totally insubstantial in it's apologia and we are left with the fact the contradictions remain without contradicted.
 
tosca1 said:
This thread will try to clear up the misconception that the Bible contradicts itself. There are some sites that list alleged contradictions. Cite a specific contradiction and we'll try to clear up the misunderstanding.
Sometimes the answer isn't that simple.


Here's one from "101 Contradictions in the Bible." 101 Contradictions in the Bible.


Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?

God did (2 Samuel 24: 1)

Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1)



Response: Here's a long explanation, so I'm just posting the end part.

The author of 2 Samuel (probably the prophets Nathan or Gad) chose to view this whole affair in the ultimate sense of God being in control of all things, while the author of 1 Chronicles (probably Ezra) wanted to showcase the satanic plot and how God used this as a tool for judgment. It is the same account with a different point of emphasis.

This also makes sense, for Nathan and Gad were prophets who proclaimed that God is in control of all the affairs of men, and knows and predicts events before they come to pass. Ezra was a priest who was interested in pointing out the holiness of God, and as one who hates sin—treason and idolatry being two of the most heinous, and the two which Israel were most prone to. The “takeaway” point here is that God judges and punishes sin, and purges out the leaven of sin from His people (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:6–8). Satan meant it for evil for David and for Israel, but God ultimately meant it for good in the long run of the nation, and so allowed Satan to provoke David.
Click to expand...
https://answersingenesis.org/contra...ed-david-to-count-the-fighting-men-of-israel/
Click to expand...

That an explanation that can reconcile an apparent contradiction exists does not mean that there is no contradiction. You (well, AiG) offers AN explanation. But there are other explanations, such as independent oral traditions being relayed, deliberate changes by the author(s) to make a certain point, and probably others I just haven't though of. To claim that a particular explanation is correct because it supports one's bias is......problematical.
 
tosca1 said:
When was the Bible written? — Biblica
Click to expand...

Yawn. Yet more ignorance. The Bible, as we know it and as you referenced it, was never written. It was compiled.

That certain sections of it are quite old does not make the Bible thousands of years old.

Nor did Moses actually write any of it. That's tradition, not fact.

This is really basic stuff.

Thanks for proving my point.
 
Here are some more contradictions for you to deny; 30 Pairs Of Bible Verses That Contradict One Another | Thought Catalog

It is interesting to note as well, Josh couldn't have been crucified as portrayed as a corpse on a stick. There were no trees in that area at that time to make a cross that size. Further, the Romans used an "X" frame for the purpose for that very reason. As well, how coud he have been jesus of Nazareth when Nazareth wasn't a village for another three hundred years? Co-incidentally, it became a village about the time the bible was being written. Contradictions everywhere one looks eh?
 
This thread is rather pointless. We are going to get only excuses and revisionism. You see this very clearly when you ask Christians very simple questions like "did Jesus do the "temple cleansing" at the beginning of his ministry or towards the end of his ministry, closer to the time of his death?"

Well, the bible doesn't agree with itself on this.In Matthew, Mark and Luke Jesus does this towards the end and in John, towards the beginning. These books all give similar accounts and details yet the Christian explanation is "well Jesus went and cleansed the Temple twice!" I mean, you have to be in terrible denial if you think this is a worthy response. You expect rational people to believe that Jesus went to the temple in John and flipped over the money changers tables and chewed out the people selling pigeons and then comes back later and again flips over the money changers tables and chews out the people selling pigeons. Yet none of the gospels list both visits, only one, and all have similar details as if it was the same story.

Care to answer for this Tosca? Am I missing something that makes this all very rational?
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Yawn. Yet more ignorance. The Bible, as we know it and as you referenced it, was never written. It was compiled.

That certain sections of it are quite old does not make the Bible thousands of years old.

Nor did Moses actually write any of it. That's tradition, not fact.

This is really basic stuff.

Thanks for proving my point.
Click to expand...

:thumbs:
 
I'll bite, how about Matthew 16:28, "Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

Was Christ lying, has the 2nd coming already happened or are some of those disciples still breathing to this day? Which is it?
 
roughdraft274 said:
This thread is rather pointless. We are going to get only excuses and revisionism. You see this very clearly when you ask Christians very simple questions like "did Jesus do the "temple cleansing" at the beginning of his ministry or towards the end of his ministry, closer to the time of his death?"

Well, the bible doesn't agree with itself on this.In Matthew, Mark and Luke Jesus does this towards the end and in John, towards the beginning. These books all give similar accounts and details yet the Christian explanation is "well Jesus went and cleansed the Temple twice!" I mean, you have to be in terrible denial if you think this is a worthy response. You expect rational people to believe that Jesus went to the temple in John and flipped over the money changers tables and chewed out the people selling pigeons and then comes back later and again flips over the money changers tables and chews out the people selling pigeons. Yet none of the gospels list both visits, only one, and all have similar details as if it was the same story.

Care to answer for this Tosca? Am I missing something that makes this all very rational?
Click to expand...

I do not know who is telling you Christ cleared the Temple twice but in all the three Synoptic Gospels, and St. Johns Gospel there is only one account of the temple being cleared. I find it strange the critics try to demean the three Synoptic books by saying that the authors must have collaborated or shared records with each other, and other critics demean them because they aren't identical. This says more about the critics than the books. The point of all four narratives is Christ cleared the temple.
 
tosca1 said:
This thread will try to clear up the misconception that the Bible contradicts itself. There are some sites that list alleged contradictions. Cite a specific contradiction and we'll try to clear up the misunderstanding.
Sometimes the answer isn't that simple.


Here's one from "101 Contradictions in the Bible." 101 Contradictions in the Bible.


Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?

God did (2 Samuel 24: 1)

Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1)



Response: Here's a long explanation, so I'm just posting the end part.


https://answersingenesis.org/contra...ed-david-to-count-the-fighting-men-of-israel/
Click to expand...

Nonsense. The contradictions exist because of lousy proof reading.
 
Green Hornet said:
I do not know who is telling you Christ cleared the Temple twice but in all the three Synoptic Gospels, and St. Johns Gospel there is only one account of the temple being cleared. I find it strange the critics try to demean the three Synoptic books by saying that the authors must have collaborated or shared records with each other, and other critics demean them because they aren't identical. This says more about the critics than the books. The point of all four narratives is Christ cleared the temple.
Click to expand...

Answers in genesis, one of the worlds largest Christian Apologetics organization told me.

https://answersingenesis.org/jesus-christ/when-did-jesus-cleanse-the-temple/

Some Christians believe these accounts describe the same event, but there is a problem. John describes the cleansing of the temple as occurring during the first Passover (of three) mentioned in his Gospel. Meanwhile, Matthew, Mark, and Luke all describe the temple-cleansing as taking place just days before Christ’s Crucifixion. Is this a contradiction and if so, who is right?
....

Students of the Bible need to realize that similarity does not necessarily equal same-ness. In other words, just because two accounts are similar, it does not mean they refer to the same thing. In this case, the solution is actually quite simple. Jesus cleansed the temple on at least two occasions. The first time was near the beginning of His ministry, as described in John. The final time was just prior to His death, as described in the Synoptics.
Click to expand...

Either you have to claim that the bible got the timing wrong in one spot, and therefor contradicts itself, or you have to make the ridiculous claim that it happened twice in an extremely similar manner.
 
tosca1 said:
What makes you think He doesn't know that?
Click to expand...
Who god? He's God he knows everything. I was talking about the bible.
Furthermore....what's that got to do with the narrative being discussed?
Click to expand...
Everything.
Hello?
Click to expand...
Yes I'm here, can you hear me?
The Bible has been around for thousands of years.....and it's still very much relevant today!
Click to expand...
Well over half of it isn't even to christians. The old testament was nullified by the birth of Christ and much of the new testament is backward. But some of it is relevant, much of the gospels are.
I think you need some time wrapping your head around that.
Click to expand...
By that I presume you mean I need to spend time with so called "biblical teachers" that apologize for the stupidity and horrendous crap in parts of the bible? No, I don't need brainwashing.
Based on your opinion above......obviously, it isn't a source of knowledge to you.
Click to expand...
It is actually based on reality. Even you don't get any knowledge from it. It's static and has been for hundreds of years. It brings nothing new, it never changes or grows. It is a sorce of spiritual enlightenment not intellectual enlightenment. That's all it has ever been. No scientist has ever used the bible as a source for knowledge.
That's your problem, not the Bible's.
Click to expand...
Actually it isn't a problem at all. The bible is what it is and nothing more. That isn't my problem. That's my assessment. The bible can't have a problem is a book.
First of all, unless the child is a genius....any five year old wouldn't even be able to read, let alone understand the Bible.
Click to expand...
Please don't estimate the intelligence of the world based on your short comings. When I was five i attended Sunday school at a Presbyterian church. They explained to me that noah built an arc because God commanded him to do so. Then all of the animals, male and female of each species got onto the arc while the earth flooded.

Are you taking me a five year old can't understand that? Wow, apparently you think I'm a genius because I understood that. Thanks for the complement.
You don't and can't even realize that simple fact....and you "analyzed" the Bible?
Click to expand...
So after analysis one can surmise the arc story didn't occur as it was described in the bible? I'd agree that a five year old could do that.
You're the one with the problem.
Click to expand...
Really? What is my problem?
 
tosca1 said:
What makes you think He doesn't know that?

Furthermore....what's that got to do with the narrative being discussed?





Hello? The Bible has been around for thousands of years.....and it's still very much relevant today!
I think you need some time wrapping your head around that.





Based on your opinion above......obviously, it isn't a source of knowledge to you.
That's your problem, not the Bible's.





First of all, unless the child is a genius....any five year old wouldn't even be able to read, let alone understand the Bible. You don't and can't even realize that simple fact....and you "analyzed" the Bible?
You're the one with the problem.
Click to expand...

The bible is "relevant" today because people are still spending their time, energy, money and blood defending it. That's all. Secondly, the reason they indoctrinate small children in bible "learning" is that they are NOT sophisticated enough to ask the right questions and are naturally credulous to their parents. Children will believe absolutely ANYTHING their parents say. If you don't believe me, consider how many American children believe a fat guy in a red suit flies around the globe in a magical-reindeer-powered sled, visiting every child's house in a single night.

Humans have an evolved tendency to believe in magical crap, because it's very uncomfortable to not know how the universe works. Fear comforts itself with lies, if necessary. That truth transcends religion but does a great job of explaining the bible too.
 
CLAX1911 said:
When you talk to certain religious people about this they say Jesus didn't come to abolish the law, he cane to fulfill it. Fulfill it by abolishing it?
Click to expand...

I don't see what's so hard to understand. If I contract you to deliver 10 tons of rock, then you deliver it, the contract has been fulfilled. If you don't deliver the stone, and figure out some way to get out of doing it, then the contract has been abolished.

Pretty simple.
 
Fishking said:
I don't see what's so hard to understand. If I contract you to deliver 10 tons of rock, then you deliver it, the contract has been fulfilled.
Click to expand...
That is a poor analogy. One can't deliver 10 tons of law, it isn't a physical thing.
If you don't deliver the stone, and figure out some way to get out of doing it, then the contract has been abolished.

Pretty simple.
Click to expand...
You can't deliver laws. crummy analogy.

If something was once law but is no longer the law it is abolished.

pretty simple.
 
CLAX1911 said:
That is a poor analogy. One can't deliver 10 tons of law, it isn't a physical thing. You can't deliver laws. crummy analogy.

If something was once law but is no longer the law it is abolished.

pretty simple.
Click to expand...

It's a perfect analogy if you actually understood what the law represented. If you knew that then you'd know that it wasn't meant to be a permanent matter and that it was predictive of what was to come.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Answers in genesis, one of the worlds largest Christian Apologetics organization told me.

https://answersingenesis.org/jesus-christ/when-did-jesus-cleanse-the-temple/



Either you have to claim that the bible got the timing wrong in one spot, and therefor contradicts itself, or you have to make the ridiculous claim that it happened twice in an extremely similar manner.
Click to expand...

That site is lame, Chic Publications make outrages claims as well no legitimate theologian uses them. I would avoid that site and others like it. And no it is not a contradiction, as I explained the Gospel of St. John is not a Synoptic Gospel. The only thing I can tell you is read all four Gospels from a study Bible with good footnotes, and that is not the outfit you linked, they are not even affiliated with a Church. John differs in many ways, but also shares in ways that are not apparent. Remember they are all four different books, not one book. Synoptic tend to focus more on healing, particularly Mark, whereas scholars have noticed John places a very high emphasis on baptism imagery/ministry, particularly in the beginning. The miracles in John are fewer in number, and are referred to as "signs" recorded for a very specific, cumulative theological point.
 
Realitywins said:
More contradictions. First your link says the first bits of the bible were set down 3500 years ago or so. Then it says the folks then couldn't write, then it says the first bits of the bible were set down 1400 BCE. BTW, those 3500 year old bits?
Click to expand...

It shows you hardly understand anything about the dating.


Another point, Moses was no more an actual historical person than Joshua (the proper translation of Yeshua) was. Virtually no-one mentioned in the bible actually existed especially including Noah and his flood. The flood myth was contrived some thousands of years before the xians purloined it. Somehow this world-wide flood escaped the notice of other civilizations like the Chinese who have records going back that far and oddly, make no mention of such a calamity.
Click to expand...

And you're all over the place. :roll:

This thread is about the alleged contradictions in the Bible. Bringing up the issue whether these Biblical people existed or not....is not the issue. That's irrelevant here.
To make that your argument in this thread would be quite unreasonable.

If you don't believe at all that they'd existed, then you're saying the entire Bible is all made up!
If that's the case, then what the heck are you on about bringing up contradictions, and saying , "see? it's not God-inspired," when you're already saying the entire Bible is bogus? :lamo

You're so confused with your own stance....:mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
pinqy said:
That an explanation that can reconcile an apparent contradiction exists does not mean that there is no contradiction. You (well, AiG) offers AN explanation. But there are other explanations, such as independent oral traditions being relayed, deliberate changes by the author(s) to make a certain point, and probably others I just haven't though of.
Click to expand...

But it is not a contradiction. Showing two accounts from two different view points, is not a contradiction at all.
That would be the same as two people describing the same incident from two different angles.



To claim that a particular explanation is correct because it supports one's bias is......problematical.
Click to expand...

I didn't claim that the explanation is correct because it supports my views!

I'm saying, what is being given as a contradiction, is not a contradiction....... and here is why!
The explanation is given.


Supporting the claims by critiques who obviously hardly know anything about what they criticize, in lieu of the detailed explanations by those who know more since they'd studied and analyzed the issue....is, what is not only obviously biased but, quite so problematic.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom