Does the Bible Contradict Itself?

[KichigaiNeko]

---

Young Spock, you may wish to spend some time on this site http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

do your OWN research and come to your OWN logical conclusions

This discussion thread is my current research, my good Kichi!

---

Please call me Kichi!.... Neko = cat in romaji Japanese.

As for the babble...research it for your self is the best way. I did and followed up on the many belief systems prevalent at that time period and before. You will find a continuity only of imaginary friends and fiends. As for the rest?? Well Min is the best exponent of history we have here on this site (not to diminish the contributions of pad and others), take note of his/ their references and follow them through.
Cheers
Kichi

Thanks, Kichi. Are you Japanese? My employer spent several years in Japan.

---

[spockrates]

Thanks for the reply, Neko. I was actually wondering if the Bible is internally consistent, or if the authors of its books contradict each othe in some significant way. Many say its pages are replete with such contradictions. I'm wondering exactly what these are so I may examine them for myself.

I have given you four examples, two of which you discount as "mistranslations", another (the one about the dath of Judas) can be reconciled by constructing a narative that will fit - the other you have yet to answer (post #172).

Regards

Grimesy

Sorry about missing 172, Grimesy. I'll check it out and let you know what I think.

---

Napoleon: Thanks for the private message. Tried to respond, but you have PMs disabled. No biggie.

---

---

This discussion thread is my current research, my good Kichi!

---

Thanks, Kichi. Are you Japanese? My employer spent several years in Japan.

---

[spockrates]

Your answer is actually the one I've given during conversations with those of such certain beliefs. I have to admit that I admire how sure they are of themselves, but I wonder if such a complete absence of doubt makes one more susceptible to deception, rather than less so.

When you discredit reason, and replace it with faith, why do you need to doubt what you believe? The whole thing about using reason is that you do doubt.

Agreed! Without reason, one's faith is blind. By faith, I'm speaking merely of trust. For example, someone might accuse you of being a harsh person who cares nothing for those seeking truth.

"Look how Napoleon abuses anyone who asks questions, or expresses any doubts that what he say is true! I feel that he could not care less about you!" such an uninfomed critic might say after reading some of your posts and taking them out of context.

"Not true!" I'd reply in your defense, "Napoleon might have his off moments, just like I do, but I have faith that he really does care. I believe in him; and if you'd give him half a chance, you'd become a believer, too!"

Now in this case, I'd say your critic's faith is blind. Rather than based on the full facts, it's based on a hasty judgment. My opinion, I believe is based on reason and a better grasp of a more objective and complete conception of you, which is closer to the truth.

Would you say, then that (at least in this example) faith is not antethetical to reason? One might say reason reveals the truth to us, but faith puts trust in what reason reveals, don't you think?

[KichigaiNeko]

Most people who care get taken advantage of, hence they develop this anti social attitude

[spockrates]

Most people who care get taken advantage of, hence they develop this anti social attitude

Yes, but it is the rare (and admired) person who rises above such betrayal. For example, I admire Jesus for living out his own words:

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies[b] and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."

(Matthew 5)

For while suffering during his execution, he prayed, "Father, forgive them. For they don't know what they are doing."

---

Hmmm. Does it sound as though Jesus was contradicting the Old Testament?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...on=NIV1984

:o

---

MAT 27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

LUK 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

JOH 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

Spockrates, did you ever come up with an explaination for the 3 different versions of JCs' last words. The MAT and LUK verses could be reconciled as you pointed out earlier, but the one from JOH doesn't seem to be linked.

Regards

Grimesy

Grimesy:

To me, the context shows that Jesus said all three statements during his execution. His crucifixion was not quick, as this article from the Journal of the American Medical Association points out:

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx...eid=403315

The ancient Romans perfected the process to make the executed suffer for as long as possible, so as to deter others who were tempted to commit the same crimes. So Jesus had plenty of time to speak more than once during the excruciating torture (indeed, the word excruciating comes from the Latin for out of the cross, or something to that effect), despite that fact that he would have found it extremely difficult to catch his breath. Since none of the authors use the words, "Jesus last words were..." (or something similar) it's not at all certain that any of these statements spoken during his execution were his last statement. Earlier, I guessed that Luke recorded his last statement, for he adds the words, "and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." However, I'm not sure of this guess, either. Jesus might very well have said something else after the words Luke recorded, and before "he gave up the ghost". We simply don't have enough information from the texts to know with any degree of certainty.

That being said, I should add that for me, personally, it's not important what Christ said with his last breath. What matters is that what he said from his first breath on the cross, to his last was not contrary. For example, he did not say, "Father, forgive them. For they don't know what they are doing is wrong," and "Father, make them pay for what they've done to me! May they burn in Hell!" His words do not contradict each other--either on the cross, or at any point in his life. He was a man absent of any contradiction, which is a feat I don't think I'll ever achieve.

[Undeceived]

All Christians believe the original Hebrew text is divinely inspired (if they believe in inspiration at all). The problem arises when there is an ancient Hebrew word with a meaning translators are not sure of. Context is used, but sometimes context is not enough. In any case, we should be safe if (and as it appears) the Hebrew text hasn't changed. Dubious portions of scripture are few and far between. And they have no bearing on the overall message. With four Gospel accounts, it is clear that Jesus died, that He left the tomb, and that many people saw Him. There is no need to be worried about how Judas died. He was so grieved by his actions that he killed himself--that's all we need to know.

Hmmmmm . . . . . you seem to be saying don't bother about the details, just concentrate on the general sweep of the narative. The Xtian postition about bible accuracy is not usually "just feel the story though the actual details may be incorrect and contradictory.", and don't forget your OP was "Does the bible contradict itself?"

Isn't this just the familiar apologist position of "it is the inerrant word of god" when that suits and "things were different then, it should be interpreted like this . . . . ." when that suits.

By "dubious" I mean hard to understand. The words are still inerrant, and we're showing in this thread they harbor no contradictions. This is a very small matter and does not need to be blown out of proportion. The way Judas died is insignificant. There are a lot of unmentioned details that are insignificant--that's why they're not in the Bible. The only time scripture is vague is when we want to go beyond it. I'll modify your statement:
"The Xtian postition about bible accuracy [should not be] 'just feel the story though the actual details may be incorrect and contradictory.'"
And I agree wholeheartedly.

2 Timothy 3:16 says, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped." When we start saying "things were different then" when it suits us, we are driving the Bible rather than letting it drive us. That is why we cannot declare with certainty how (as our example goes) Judas perished.
Do you know of a dispute among Biblical scholars more crucial than Matthew 27:5?

[Anomalocaris]

When we start saying "things were different then" when it suits us, we are driving the Bible rather than letting it drive us.

That the genetic heritage of so intelligent a primate as chimpanzee could have been misappropriated to produce so mentally inert an offspring as “Undeceived” must be one of the great shames in the story of life on earth.

[pgrimes15]

MAT 27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

LUK 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

JOH 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

Spockrates, did you ever come up with an explaination for the 3 different versions of JCs' last words. The MAT and LUK verses could be reconciled as you pointed out earlier, but the one from JOH doesn't seem to be linked.

Regards

Grimesy

Grimesy:

To me, the context shows that Jesus said all three statements during his execution. His crucifixion was not quick, as this article from the Journal of the American Medical Association points out:

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx...eid=403315

The ancient Romans perfected the process to make the executed suffer for as long as possible, so as to deter others who were tempted to commit the same crimes. So Jesus had plenty of time to speak more than once during the excruciating torture (indeed, the word excruciating comes from the Latin for out of the cross, or something to that effect), despite that fact that he would have found it extremely difficult to catch his breath. Since none of the authors use the words, "Jesus last words were..." (or something similar) it's not at all certain that any of these statements spoken during his execution were his last statement. Earlier, I guessed that Luke recorded his last statement, for he adds the words, "and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." However, I'm not sure of this guess, either. Jesus might very well have said something else after the words Luke recorded, and before "he gave up the ghost". We simply don't have enough information from the texts to know with any degree of certainty.

That being said, I should add that for me, personally, it's not important what Christ said with his last breath. What matters is that what he said from his first breath on the cross, to his last was not contrary. For example, he did not say, "Father, forgive them. For they don't know what they are doing is wrong," and "Father, make them pay for what they've done to me! May they burn in Hell!" His words do not contradict each other--either on the cross, or at any point in his life. He was a man absent of any contradiction, which is a feat I don't think I'll ever achieve.

LUK 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" AND HAVING SAID THUS, HE GAVE UP THE GHOST."

JOH 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" AND HE BOWED HIS HEAD, AND GAVE UP THE GHOST."

These both look like last words to me. Don't forget that your OP challenged people to find contradictory passages. The fact that you get a certain meaning from it or Jesus may have said something that we don't know about, or distractions about how the Romans performed this type of execution are only your interpretation and speculation NOT WHAT THE PASSAGES ACTUALLY SAY.

Regards

Grimesy

[Nemo]

why yes it does

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

This is something I've not heard about the NT before.

My guess would be that this is because you refuse to expose yourself to different points of view from actual scholars.

'Misquoting Jesus',by Bart Ehrman would be a good place to start. Perhaps also read up on the first Nicene council, (325 CE) at which the Christian canon was arbitrarily decided. Also have a read of 'The Gospel Of Thomas' part of the Nag Hammadi texts. Available free on line.

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

The full Wiki article is worth reading,but the book is much better (a kind member sent me a pdf copy)

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why is a book by Bart D. Ehrman, a New Testament scholar at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.[1] The book introduces lay readers to the field of textual criticism of the Bible. Ehrman discusses a number of textual variants that resulted from intentional or accidental manuscript changes during the scriptorium era.

Summary

Ehrman recounts his personal experience with the study of the Bible and textual criticism. He summarizes the history of textual criticism, from the works of Desiderius Erasmus to the present. The book describes an early Christian environment in which the books that would later compose the New Testament were copied by hand, mostly by Christian amateurs. Ehrman concludes that various early scribes altered the New Testament texts in order to deemphasize the role of women in the early church, to unify and harmonize the different portrayals of Jesus in the four gospels, and to oppose certain heresies (such as Adoptionism). Ehrman contends that certain widely-held Christian beliefs, such about the divinity of Jesus, are associated not with the original words of scripture but with these later alterations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misquoting_Jesus