Does the Bible Contradict Itself?

[Erinome]

Maybe we can start a discussion based upon the contradictions cited here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLE...dxpBxdbPaw

I'm ready when you are.

[spockrates]

How about if women who give childbirth are sinful? This is was brought up recently in a conversation with my fiance: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra...aring.html

The passage in context:

12 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Say to the Israelites: ‘A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. 3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. 4 Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. 5 If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.

6 “‘When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering. 7 He shall offer them before the Lord to make atonement for her, and then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood.

“‘These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl. 8 If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean. ’”

(Leviticus 12)


My thought: The sacrifice of the dove was for sin in general, and not for giving birth to a child. The pain and bleeding of child birth was believed to be part of the curse on the human race. It was a reminder that no one is perfectly good--man nor woman. All needed to be forgiven, so the dove was sacrificed. (I'm sure an Orthodox Jewish person would do much a better job of explaining it than I.)

---

The answer: I don't know. My question: What is the topic of discussion for this discussion thread, my friend?

Ok, if you need it spelled out for you. Two different names are credited with fathering Salah. And it's not two different people, they're described as being in the same lineage, it's just Chinese whispers resulting in two different versions of events.

Sorry, I'm unfamiliar with the text.

---

Maybe we can start a discussion based upon the contradictions cited here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLE...dxpBxdbPaw

I'm ready when you are.

I'm having sound issues with this PC. Got any videos with subtitles?

[Minimalist]

The topic of discussion is whether there are any contradictions between two different passages of scripture

And if you could pay attention you would see that Matthew has Herod the Great alive when your godboy was born and Luke puts it a minimum of ten years later.

Herod and Quirinius are both historical figures. There is no way to reconcile the contradiction between these two passages.

If you'd quit trying to move the goalposts you would see that you have your one contradiction.

Deal with it.

[Annik]

But this implies that childbirth is inherently sinful, if forgiveness is needed, which is contradictory to Timothy saying that women can only be saved via childbirth (in regards to Eve).

[ElDinero]

Sorry, I'm unfamiliar with the text.

Well then look it up, dickhead. I've told you what the Bible says, so perhaps search for 'Salah'. Just a pointer for you.

[Mystic]

Guys don't be mean. He seems to be a well-mannered person seeking the truth.

It takes courage to come here and discuss with people hostile towards him and that want to disprove his faith.

Yet he has come, and I think he deserves respect.

I don't know why people always disrespect Christians coming to debate. Would you rather have people just go on their own forums, debate no one, and not test their faith with people whom oppose it?

[Annik]

Guys don't be mean. He seems to be a well-mannered person seeking the truth.

It takes courage to come here and discuss with people hostile towards him and that want to disprove his faith.

Yet he has come, and I think he deserves respect.

I don't know why people always disrespect Christians coming to debate. Would you rather have people just go on their own forums, debate no one, and not test their faith with people whom oppose it?

I feel as if many of us think him/her guilty of intellectual dishonesty. Personally, I think they are feigning ignorance, but I cannot say either way, as I have no solid evidence. Therefore, I will proceed as if they are not feigning ignorance. Not everyone will take the same course of action, nor should they feel obligated to.

[Minimalist]

Personally, I think they are feigning ignorance,

I don't think they are faking it, dear.

[Colanth]

What's your basis for saying that it would have taken over ten years? Bearing in mind that ten years is the absolute MINIMUM amount of time, if it started just as Herod was about to cark it and ended just as Quirinus came into office.

This strikes at the heart of why people have been reluctant to participate in your thread. You're given an example and instead of thinking about it as a problem, you stick with your original position no matter what and try to find ways to shoehorn it any way you can, making unsupported assertions along the way.

It would take much time to have everyone in ancient Palestine (men and women) journey to the village or city in which their ancestors were born.

That's not a Biblical contradiction, that's a Biblical ERROR, evidently written - long after the fact - by someone totally unfamiliar with first-century Roman laws.

Rome required that everyone return to his place of residence, not his place of birth. That would mean that about 99.9% of the population was already where they had to be. Many - like traders - had more than one "legal" place of residence, so they could also stay where they were. Others - like soldiers and other employees of Rome - were exempt from returning to their places of residence for a census.

So VERY few people would have had to travel. Ten years? Ten months would have been a lot more time than was needed.

Try another useless apologism.

Oh, and while you're at it, how - exactly - did Judas die? IOW, what would the cause of death have been listed as if he had died today? The only way around that obvious contradiction is a lie.

[Minimalist]

It would take much time to have everyone in ancient Palestine (men and women) journey to the village or city in which their ancestors were born.

It is also quite possibly the stupidest thing ever written. The Romans did not give a flying fuck how many people were in Palestine.

Josephus, in Book XVIII of Antiquities of the Jews states:

Moreover, Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance, and to dispose of Archelaus's money;

No world-wide census. No absurd journeying to ancient home towns. Just a newly annexed territory added to the province of Syria.

Again, put down the fucking bible and learn some shit. You are making a fool out of yourself.