StuckInThe90s

You claim that if the "Bible says it", that's the end of the discussion. The Bible is all truths, the Bible is perfect. Same can be said for the Koran, Torah, etc. Whenever a contradiction arises, the response is usually the same.

"It was translated to English wrong". If you want to believe that, even after I've made all the relevant posts I need to in this thread, who am I to pop your bubble of blissful existence?

SOME, yes, SOME of the supposed Biblical contradictions ARE explainable. But plenty at the same time are obvious for what they are, CONTRADICTIONS.

Now the following quotes, if left alone, and with nothing being added or taken away, it's clear to see that you can't have them both ways,

1)What color was Jesus' robe?
Was it scarlet or purple? Unless the word scarlet translates to purple in either Hebrew or Greek and you can cite the source, this is a contradiction.
Matthew 27:28
And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe.

Mark 15:17
And they clothed him with purple, and platted a crown of thorns, and put it about his head.

John 19:2
And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe.

Does your God of love for every one of his own creation enjoy and desire the killing of animal sacrifices or even just sacrifices in general or not? According to the following verses he does-

Genesis 4:4
And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering.

Genesis 8:20-21
And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And the Lord smelled a sweet savour.

Exodus 29:11-37
And thou shalt kill the bullock before the LORD

Leviticus 23:12-18
And you shall offer that day when you wave the sheaf an he lamb without blemish of the first year for a burnt offering to the LORD

Numbers 18:17
But the firstling of a cow, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat, you shall not redeem; they are holy: you shall sprinkle their blood on the altar, and shall burn their fat for an offering made by fire, for a sweet smell to the LORD

Deuteronomy 12:27
And thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the LORD thy God: and the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out upon the altar of the LORD thy God, and thou shalt eat the flesh.

But then we have these 2 quotes, so what is one to believe?

Isaiah 66:3
He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.

Matthew 9:13
But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

There are some quotes in the Bible that claim God may prestent himself if he wishes to people, and some that claim he has. Then there are quotes that say no man can see God and live. Which is it?

Genesis 12:7
And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him

Genesis 17:1
And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect

Genesis 26:1-26:2
And there was a famine in the land, beside the first famine that was in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went unto Abimelech king of the Philistines unto Gerar

And the LORD appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of

Judges 13:22-13:24
And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God. But his wife said unto him, If the LORD were pleased to kill us, he would not have received a burnt offering and a meat offering at our hands, neither would he have shewed us all these things, nor would as at this time have told us such things as these. And the woman bare a son, and called his name Samson: and the child grew, and the LORD blessed him

Genesis 48:3
And Jacob said unto Joseph, God Almighty appeared unto me at Luz in the land of Canaan

Contradctions-
Exodus 33:20
There shall no man see me, and live

John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time.

John 6:46
Not that any man hath seen the Father.

1 Timothy 6:16
1 Timothy 6:16

That's all for now, depending on how this thread goes I'll add more.

__________________
"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."
~Marcus Aurelius

Abel

Ok, here's the answer to the color of the robe:

In Matthew it is scarlet:Strong's Greek Dictionary
kokkinoV kokkinos kok'-kee-nos
from 2848 (from the kernel-shape of the insect); crimson-colored:--scarlet (colour, coloured).

In Mark purple: Strong's Greek Dictionary
4209. porphura
porjura porphura por-foo'-rah
of Latin origin; the "purple" mussel, i.e. (by implication) the red-blue color itself, and finally a garment dyed with it.

In John another word is used for purple:Strong's Greek Dictionary
4210. porphurous
projurouV porphurous por-foo-rooce'
from 4209; purpureal, i.e. bluish red:--purple.

When you examine the three words you see a color that was bluish-red, or Purplish. What I call brown, my wife calls tan. Different people have different color preception. No contradiction.

God does not take pleasure in the sacrifice of an innocent animal. God would, however, accept the death of an innocent animal in place of the death of the one who sinned against Him. The wages of sin is death. Those O.T. sacrifices pointed to the future sacrifice of Christ (Innocent Lamb of God), that is why God would not accept thoughtless sacrifices i.e. killing a lamb as a dog. God would indeed perfer our obedience, rather than for us to have to make a sacrifice. No contradiction.

Finally, as to seeing God. Many times in the O.T. when God appeared to man it was in what theologians refer to as a "Theophany". A theophany was an appearance of Jesus, God the Son, prior to His incarnation. They did see God. Jesus told them that Abraham was glad when he saw Him: John 8:56 "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad." Jesus told Philip that since they had seen Him, they had seen the Father. What they did not see was God the Father face to face in His glory. When you quoted Ex.33:20, you left out that part: Exodus 33:20 "And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live." Again, no contradiction.

Please be sure you quote verses in their entirety and in proper context.

__________________
God loves you and I'm trying.

GX

Sounds like fun! I think I will add some if you dont mind "Stuck"...

Bible Contradictions

Not only are there errors in the Bible, there are also severe contradictions. These contradictions exist because the Bible was written by fallible men. The following verses are the most problematic contradictions that I know of.

Bible contradiction #1: How are we saved?

We are saved by faith alone: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith -- and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast." (Eph. 2:8-9)


"And if by grace, then it is no longer by works ..." (Rom. 11:6)

We are not saved by faith alone: "You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone." (James 2:24)


Both concepts cannot be true. Paul created a theology of salvation by faith alone. The Jerusalem apostles, who came into conflict with Paul on occasions, knew Jesus and his teachings much better than Paul. They continued Jesus' teachings of salvation through good works with faith playing a secondary role. The question to be answered is, "Who do you trust more? Jesus or Paul?" Nevertheless, NDE accounts generally show that we are already saved!

Bible contradiction #2: Is God a sinner?

God is jealous: "For the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God." (Exod. 34:14)


Jealousy is a sin: "The acts of the sinful nature are obvious ... jealousy" (Gal. 5:19-20)

If jealousy is a sin, and God is jealous, then the only conclusion we can draw is that God is a sinner. The two scripture verses above flat out contradict each other. This absurd conclusion makes God out to be less than perfect. The same can also be said of the notion of a "God of wrath" because Jesus taught that wrath is a sin.

Bible contradiction #3: Has anyone ever seen God?

Nobody has seen God: "No one has ever seen God ..." (John 1:18)

Abram saw God: "When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to him and said, "I am God Almighty; walk before me and be blameless." (Gen. 17:1)


Jacob saw God: "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared." (Gen. 32:30)


The leaders of Israel saw God: "But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank." (Exod. 24:11)


There are several Bible verses which state that nobody has ever seen God. But there are also several Bible verses which describes a large number of people who saw God.

Bible contradiction #4: Does God love or hate sinners?

God loves sinners: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son ..." (John 3:16)


God hates sinners: "You are not a God who takes pleasure in evil; with you the wicked cannot dwell. The arrogant cannot stand in your presence; you hate all who do wrong." (Psalm 5:4-5)


The Bible is filled with references to how God hates the wicked. The problem with this is that the Bible also says that "no one is righteous" and everyone is a sinner. The idea that God hates this world of sinners is a contradiction to John 3:16. And even if God loves some people and hates others, this would make God out to be a respecter of persons and his love conditional.

In some parts of the Bible, an incorrect portrayal of a love/hate relationship between God and humanity is described. For example, in the beginning, God was pleased to create man. Then, man fell from favor with God. God expresses a regret in creating man to begin with but God allows them to be fruitful and multiply. Then one day, God decided to destroy everyone on earth except for relatively a few people. God's hatred for sin and sinners leads God to actually destroy practically everyone and everything on earth. God then becomes a tribal deity to a small group of Hebrews with God chooses only to save. But God commits horrible atrocities upon them and their neighbors because of their human failings. Later, Jesus came along teaching how much God loves everyone unconditionally. God has Jesus killed as a human sacrifice and a ransom to pay to someone holding humanity hostage. The Christian Church teaches that God is no respecter of persons despite the strong partiality he has shown to Jews and those who accept the Jewish Messiah. At the end of the Bible, God is shown having a vast multitude of humanity cast headlong into the fire of hell to burn in eternal damnation. These descriptions of God, when taken literally, is certainly schizophrenic to say the least. It demonstrates how an infallible Bible can lead to absurdities.

romansh

hmmnn

Revelation 17:4 and the woman was arrayed with purple and scarlet-colour, and gilded with gold, and precious stone, and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and uncleanness of her whoredom, (YLT)

this would seem to imply scarlet and purple are different?

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

Abel

GX
On your first supposed condradiction you need to read the section in James in it's full context. James was relating how that anyone could claim to have faith in Christ, yet if there was no evidence (works) his faith was not real (dead). Our works simply prove our faith is real. James 2:22 "Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?" Actually when these two thoughts are put together, they complement each other and give us a more complete understanding of faith, and evidence of our faith. No contradiction.


For #2. The word used for "Jealous" in Exodus is in Hebrew and has two seperate meanings depending on the context in which it is used. It can be good or bad: Strong's Hebrew Dictionary
7065. qana'
anq qana' kaw-naw'
a primitive root; to be (causatively, make) zealous; jealous or envious:--(be) envy(-ious), be (move to, provoke to) jealous(-y), X very, (be) zeal(-ous).
The word "Jealous" is not used in the Galatians passage in the Authorized Version: Galatians 5:19-21 "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." Now the word that is used is "emulations" and it too has two meanings: Strong's Greek Dictionary
2205. zelos
zhloV zelos dzay'-los
from 2204; properly, heat, i.e. (figuratively) "zeal" (in a favorable sense, ardor; in an unfavorable one, jealousy, as of a husband or an enemy, malice):--emulation, envy(-ing), fervent mind, indignation, jealousy, zeal. God does have zeal for His people, but that is not a sin. No contradiction.

#3 I have already explained and see no need to do so again. Look at my previous post in this thread.

#4 -- God loves everyone, including all sinners because we are all sinners. The problem lies with your understanding of the word "Hate". In the Bible this word is different than what we are used to. It has the meaning of liking less: American Tract Society Dictionary
HATE
Often denotes in Scripture only a less degree of love, Ge 29:30-31; De 21:15; Pr 13:24; Mal 1:2-3; Lu 14:26; Ro 9:13. God has a just and perfect abhorrence of sin and sinners, Ps 5:5. But hatred in general is a malevolent passion, Ga 5:20, and no one who is not perfect in love, can hate without sin.
Example: I love both of my children equally, however, when my son does something wrong, he falls out of favor with me for a while, I may even punish him, but I still love him. If you read the supporting texts you will get a clearer picture. No contradiction.

It is easy to take bits and peices of the Bible out of context and draw false conclusions. That is why a complete understanding of Scripture elimates supposed contradictions. If possible limit your supposed contradictions to one or two per post. More than that and these posts become extremely long.

__________________
God loves you and I'm trying.

xexon

"It is easy to take bits and peices of the Bible out of context and draw false conclusions."


Yet, your own beliefs are based on a book which is proven to be incomplete and tampered with. Would the conclusions you've drawn not also be false?



x

__________________
Destroyer of Worlds

Abel

Everyone keeps talking about this proof. What proof? Give me something other than opinions.

__________________
God loves you and I'm trying.

Og

For a small example: Misquoting Jesus

Author has a PhD and M.Divinity from Princeton seminary. He's currently the chairman of the department of religious studies at Univ North Carolina in Chappel Hill. This is just one example.

I heard him talk briefly about his book on a show where he described, for example, how the oldest texts we have (not originals) did not contain the "stoning of the adulteress" story and how it appeared several hundred years after the canonization of the texts.

That's just one example. From what I've heard, there's plenty of good scholarly criticism like this. While this is a popular history book, Erhman is part of a peer reviewed community at a major accredited institution and is one amongst many.

You're welcome to look there for specific evidentiary details to support the bible as a human construct.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
Satchitananda - True Being, Pure Consciousness, and Bliss
Tat Tvam Asi - Thou art That.
You & I, no distinction.
Mettā & Namaste

Abel

Og
It is men like Ehrman that do the most damage to the cause of Christ. Due to his education and position as a professor at UNC Chapel Hill, people will have a tendency to accept what he says without question.

An examination of Bart Ehrman reveals a contradiction in him personally. He currently serves as the chairman of the Department of Religious Studies at the UNC at Chapel Hill, yet he is a professing agnostic. He does not even believe what he is suppose to teach. He actually debates against Biblical truthes. How can anyone take this man seriously?

Dr. Ehrman cannot prove what he believes. Let me give one example. Ehrman uses certain criteria in his arguments. Here's his first:
1. Criterion of independent attestation - the more sources that mention an event, the more likely it is to be historically accurate. Multiple witnesses are better than one witness. This is akin to corroborating evidence in modern trials. It is worth noting here that since Matthew and Luke took many stories from Mark, those instances cannot be considered independently attested. It is also worth noting that just because an event or saying is found only in one source, that alone is not evidence that it is historically inaccurate. This criterion will, however, assist us in determining where the information is on a spectrum of more or less likely to be authentic.

The section that I underlined is an assumption that has never been proven by Ehrman or anyone else. In fact there are those who believe Mark and Matthew were copied from a supposed text they call "Q". Several "experts" claim Matthew and Luke copied from Mark because of their exact similarities. Remember, all three men were writing about one specific person --Jesus. Of course there will be similarities. In a court of law, would the judge discount eyewitness accounts because they were exactly the same? Of course not.

Ehrman has no proof, only beliefs -- "Changes were made, however, that Ehrman believes with near certainty that could not have been mistakes, but were in fact purposeful alterations by the early church fathers and theologians to mold the early Christian writings into what they needed."

Bart Ehrman is a very educated person, but he has less understanding of the Bible than my 11 year old daughter. 1 Corinthians 2:11-14 "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

Again, we have no proof, only opinions.

__________________
God loves you and I'm trying.

Og

You utterly mischaracterize Erhman's stances. He has a vast volume of evidence (not proof) supporting his claims. Access to ancient texts and training in history of the region as well as independent research in a peer reviewed study.

He presents his opinions along with his evidence as well (like the adulteress stoning story I mentioned). You simply stated his opinions, omitted his evidence and arguments, and then discarded his stances.

Your characterization of Erhman is biased and just plain wrong.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
Satchitananda - True Being, Pure Consciousness, and Bliss
Tat Tvam Asi - Thou art That.
You & I, no distinction.
Mettā & Namaste