The Bible Has Contradictions After All

Originally posted by josephw
Ok. I've got your answer. But it will be better if you see it for yourself.
First read 1Samuel 15:22. And then go back to Jeremiah and read 7: 23. And then go to Exodus and read from 14:30 to 15:26.
And your question will be answered.

I will be waiting for your reply.

I agree completely as to Jeremiah's point—and I deliberately omitted 7:23, which states that point clearly (as do the passages you cited).

But Jeremiah did not say something like, “It is not the offerings and sacrifices that are important, but to obey my voice and walk in the way I command you.” He said that God never commanded Israel’s ancestors concerning offerings and sacrifices when he brought them out of Egypt. Yet, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy are thick with detailed commandments about those things.

Here are the possibilities that I see:

(1) Jeremiah did not know about those commandments (which I find doubtful).

(2) Jeremiah thought that the commandments given in those books were never really given by God (though the texts are clear on that)—i.e., he was taking issue with the contents of the texts.

(3) He was indulging in extreme hyperbole—denouncing offerings and sacrifices in the sharpest way (even though they had been commanded by God)—in order to set his point in bold relief.

Even with the latter interpretation—which I find to be a stretch, but possible—he is still strongly denouncing the offerings and sacrifices, not merely saying they are not the point.

I go with (2).

On one extreme are those who say that if there are any errors of fact or contradictions in the whole collection of books called the Bible, then how can any of it be trusted?

On the other extreme are those who say that if there are any errors of fact or contradictions in the whole collection of books called the Bible, then how can any of it be trusted?

I think they are both wrong.

(And, yes, I know I repeated myself—y’all can figure out the who and the why of that.)

(king James Version)(2 Chronicles)(2Chr-36-9)(Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.)

(king James Version)(2 Kings)(2Kgs-24-8)(Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.)

---

How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign?

How long did he reigned in Jerusalem?

Originally posted by vistesd
I agree completely as to Jeremiah's point—and I deliberately omitted 7:23, which states that point clearly (as do the passages you cited).

But Jeremiah did not say something like, “It is not the offerings and sacrifices that are important, but to obey my voice and walk in the way I command you.” He said that God never commanded Israel’s anc ...[text shortened]... ncing the offerings and sacrifices, not merely saying they are not the point.

I go with (2).

But the offerings and sacrifices were not commanded by God to be made until after that day that Israel was brought out of Egypt.
On the day, or there about, Israel was brought out of Egypt, God had only said to them that they should obey, and Jeremiah knew that.

Anyway, it gets too deep for me. I just got lucky on this one.

Here is one unequivocal contradiction:

St Matthew 28:1-2
After the sabbath, as the first of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to
see the tomb. And suddenly there was a great earthquake; for the angel of the Lord, descending from
heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it.

St Mark 16:1-4
When the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought
spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, when the
sun had risen, they went to the tomb. They had been saying to one another, 'Who will roll away the
stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?' When they looked up, they saw that the stone,
which was very large, had already been rolled back.

The word for 'has been rolled away' is apokekistai which is the present progressive verb form,
indicating that the action took place in an earlier time frame.

St Luke 24:1-4
But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb, taking the spices that they
had prepared. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they went in, they
did not find the body. While they were perplexed about this, suddenly two men in dazzling white
clothes stood beside them.

Again, unlike in Saint Matthew's account (in which the women arrive and the stone is subsequently
moved), in Saint Luke's account, the women arrive finding the stone already moved and wander
around puzzled before getting an explanation.

There is no explaining this. It is a contradiction. Inerrancy in historical details requires 100% concordance.
If there is a mistake, it is not inerrant. Here is a mistake -- stone moved before or after the women
arrive, can't be both! -- thus the Gospels are not historically inerrant.

Nemesio

Originally posted by vistesd
On one extreme are those who say that if there are any errors of fact or contradictions in the whole collection of books called the Bible, then how can any of it be trusted?

On the other extreme are those who say that if there are any errors of fact or contradictions in the whole collection of books called the Bible, then how can any of it be trusted?

...[text shortened]... wrong.

(And, yes, I know I repeated myself—y’all can figure out the who and the why of that.)

If I invited you over for a meal, and had the table full of your favorite foods, and I told you that one of the dishes had been poisoned, would you eat anything?

Originally posted by josephw
But the offerings and sacrifices were not commanded by God to be made until after that day that Israel was brought out of Egypt.
On the day, or there about, Israel was brought out of Egypt, God had only said to them that they should obey, and Jeremiah knew that.

Anyway, it gets too deep for me. I just got lucky on this one.

In the Hebrew, the phrase is b’yom. The b’ generally means in, at or with. (As in Genesis 1:1, b’reisheet—“in [the] beginning”, or “with beginning.” yom can mean day, or year, or simply a period of time.

To translate the phrase in Jeremiah 7:22 as “on the day”—meaning that particular day—is not any more literal a translation than “in the day” or “at that time.”

But I don’t think that this literature in general—or Jeremiah in particular—was intended to be parsed in that picayune a manner.

Now, I’ve done some picayune parsing in my time—but always within the midrashic scheme of opening up all the possibilities of a text, never for putting closure on one just for the sake of making the texts align.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Here is one unequivocal contradiction:

St Matthew 28:1-2
After the sabbath, as the first of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to
see the tomb. And suddenly there was a great earthquake; for the angel of the Lord, descending from
heaven, [b]came and rolled back the stone and sat on it.

St Mark 16:1-4
When the sabbath ...[text shortened]... men
arrive, can't be both! -- thus the Gospels are not historically inerrant.

Nemesio[/b]

If you are suggesting, in Mathews acount, that the women were already at the tomb, and then the stone was moved, you are wrong.
It doesn't say that.

Originally posted by vistesd
In the Hebrew, the phrase is b’yom. The b’ generally means in, at or with. (As in Genesis 1:1, b’reisheet—“in [the] beginning”, or “with beginning.” yom can mean day, or year, or simply a period of time.

To translate the phrase in Jeremiah 7:22 as “on the day”—meaning that particular day—is not any more litera ...[text shortened]... ilities of a text, never for putting closure on one just for the sake of making the texts align.

Nevertheless, when the translators produced the bible, I'm certain they kept their parsed picayune out of sight.

I know I would have. 🙄

Originally posted by josephw
If I invited you over for a meal, and had the table full of your favorite foods, and I told you that one of the dishes had been poisoned, would you eat anything?

I don’t get it. But let me try this—

If I came over to your house for dinner, and you told me that the red, jelly-like substance in the small dish was not really strawberry preserves (though those look like strawberries, and smell like strawberries), but really orange marmalade—I would disbelieve you.

That does not mean that I would also disbelieve you when you told me that what looked and smelled like an onion was—in fact—an onion...

And I might put the jelly-stuff on my bread even though I dislike orange marmalade, trusting my own senses that it is really strawberry preserves.

Okay: If you told me the meal was poison (assuming that I don’t know if you are kidding), I won’t eat. And if you have told a thousand people in the past that it is poison, and they all ate it—only to discover that you were kidding, so they are all just fine—I still might not eat it.

__________________________

There was a time when people thought that the sun had to revolve around the earth—because if the length of a day is determined by the earth’s rotation instead, then God’s “stopping the sun in the sky” would not have made the day last any longer. And if you couldn’t trust the Bible on such a basic thing as that, well...

Originally posted by josephw
Nevertheless, when the translators produced the bible, I'm certain they kept their parsed picayune out of sight.

I know I would have. 🙄

LOL! Good one.

Originally posted by whodey
I think you will find that ALL data has an element of interpretation. For example, if you look up at the sky you will notice the planets moving unlike the stars that are in a fixed position. The interpretation is that the planets move but the stars do not. However, ONLY after further investigation do we find that this is not the case. However, the origina ...[text shortened]... suming the stars are in a fixed position, so to speak. Perhaps further investigation is needed?

The stars are not fixed, it just appears that they are because the parallax is small.

Originally posted by vistesd
On one extreme are those who say that if there are any errors of fact or contradictions in the whole collection of books called the Bible, then how can any of it be trusted?

On the other extreme are those who say that if there are any errors of fact or contradictions in the whole collection of books called the Bible, then how can any of it be trusted?

...[text shortened]... wrong.

(And, yes, I know I repeated myself—y’all can figure out the who and the why of that.)

I agree in part. That is, as long as the "errors" are not in terms of spiritual significance. For example, the whole account of Judas dying is interesting, however, the details in terms of spiritual significance are not. However, if the error is in terms of Christ being crusified and resurrecting, then yes I would say that the "errors" are of significance. That is why I think you have ALL of the books in the NT pointing to Christ and his resurrection. ALL are in agreement. This is why the NT was written. Otherwise throw it out and read the Torah!!!

Originally posted by scottishinnz
The stars are not fixed, it just appears that they are because the parallax is small.

I know that, that is my point. Superficial observation, although important, does not mean that the interpretation of that observation is 100% accurate. Likewise, many of the passages of scripture are seen superficially but yet further investigation into the "apparent" contradictions by many are deemed to be laughible. All I ask is that we endevour to dig for truth in terms of theology just as we do in science. Don't just take it face value without an edeecated interpretation.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Well, since the Acts passage speaks of Judas' purchasing the field and falling headlong in it, you're
really struggling to make things fit. Especially since the field was purchased by the priests in the
Temple.

I mean, this is what would have to have happened:
Judas buys the field.
Judas throws money in the Temple.
Judas hangs himself in the field. ...[text shortened]... hat about you?

Why would you trust a text that would omit such basic details?

Nemesio

The Bible is a spiritual text, therefore, I would omit details that were not spiritual in nature. In fact, we are lucky to see such details such as Judas hanging himself at all. For example, how much do you think was omited in the creation account if it is accurate? We are talking billions and billions of years here, no? However, the Bible is not a book of science. Therefore we are only given a chapter or two on the matter.

In terms of accuracy, I would think that the more accounts of a particular story the more accurate the picture becomes. For example, if one person came up to me and said that they saw aliens land, I would probably scoff at them. However, if two people came up to me and said they saw aliens I would possibly listen a bit more carefully. Then again, if two or more people said they saw aliens and those sources had no connection then I would have to assume that they saw something that could be interpreted as aliens landing. Likewise, with the Bible you have many, many sources screaming at you that Christ was cursified and has arisen!!! If only one source was telling me this then perhaps I would scoff. If other eye witnesses said that they know for a fact that he had not risen then perhaps I would scoff even more. However, if a group of people came up to me and said he had arisen and none saying otherwise then they would have my interest peeked. I think this is perhaps why the Bible has many many authors and eye witnesses. There is power in such numbers. In fact, the more witnesses the greater the likelyhood that what they are saying is true!!

BTW: Just to let you know, I am not 100% sure that the Judas accounts in the various gospels are 100% accurate and my faith is not shaken for it. However, I do not find blatant contradictions here just the same.