Does the Bible Contradict Itself?

[Cato]

And if you asked one of these dwarves, "Which one are you? Happy, or sneezy?" What would it say?

"Neither, I'm Grumpy. Now piss off"

[spockrates]

Is it possible for a blind man to see?

That's irrelevant. Seems like a red herring to the contradiction.

Anyways Spockrates, you seem like your genuinely seeking the truth, I think people are projecting the image of people they've dealt with in the past with you.

I actual don't find this to be a contradiction, because I remember in Shiite Islam, there was this belief regarding seeing God.

1) You can't fully see God and all fall short of seeing the glory of his face.
2) You can see God and see his face, but his face is a brought down light/created glory.

The face of God was said to remain when things disappear, so it is both seen and unseen.

God is seen to a degree, but unseen to a greater degree. His Glory/Command/Face is seen to a degree, but is unseen to a degree.

This is how I reconciled the Quran saying vision grasps him not, and saying believers will be looking towards God, plus mutuwatir du'a of Imams asking to see God.

So I solved this contradiction that way.

Yes, that's one way to resolve the dilemma. Here's another: Let's say I'm completely blind. Is it still possible for me to still see the truth?

---

And if you asked one of these dwarves, "Which one are you? Happy, or sneezy?" What would it say?

"Neither, I'm Grumpy. Now piss off"

He's an angry elf!

---

So much to google; so little time! Before I do, please tell me: Is this regarding two biblical passages that contradict each other, or is it regarding something else?

Tell you what, just click this and respond:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/salah.html

I'd say that father does not always mean father and son does not always mean son. For example, please tell me: What does the word father mean in this passage of the Bible? Does the word mean a biological father, or something else?

“Abraham is our father,” they answered. “If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do the things Abraham did."

(John 8:39)

---

Well said! I have to say you've caught onto that symbolism quicker than anyone I've ever asked that question, before. Perhaps you are already familiar with the words of Socrates on the subject?

I cannot help feeling, Phaedrus, that writing unfortunately suffers from the same flaw as painting. For the creations of the painter have the appearance of life, and yet if you ask them a question they preserve a solemn silence. And the same may be said of the written word. You would imagine that it had intelligence, but if you want to know anything and put a question to what you are reading, it always gives one unvarying answer over and over again. And once written down in books the word travels promiscuously about the world, among those who may or may not understand it, and it knows not to whom it should speak or to whom not to speak. And if the written word is slandered or abused, it needs the author of its being to come to its aid. For the written word cannot protect or defend itself.

(Phaedrus)


So then, when someone tells me not to ask her about any biblical contradictions, but to leave her out of it and go read them myself, what good will it do me if I have questions to ask the authors of these criticisms? Like silent paintings, their written commentaries on scripture will not be able to answer my questions! Moreover should I have no questions and think I comprehend them, how do I know that they themselves have not misunderstood the intented meanings of the biblical authors they criticize?

My thought, then is this: The best way to discover the truth is to ask as many thoughtful people who will answer (like yourself) what they think the author's written words mean, and to rule out every impossible interpretation until whatever remains (no matter how improbable) is the truth. Once we determine the true intended meaning of each text, only then will we be in a sound position to make a rational and reliable judgment as to whether any contradictions really exist between them. Don't you agree?

I couldn't have said it better myself!

Having said all this then, what's your view on the possibility of Mark being something other than an historical account like I have been saying?

It's entirely possible, but in no way certain. We'd have to ask Mark. Since he's not here, we'd have to do our best to figure out the truth together though our investigation of the evidence supporting your view.

---

Once again, the purpose of this discussion thread is different from your own.

Horseshit.

In case you forgot - because you seem to have trouble holding on to a thought - this was your OP.

I'm wondering whether there are any biblical passages that contradict one another. Please provide two contradictory passages for discussion and explain why they result in a contradiction. Thanks.

You have spent the rest of the time dishonestly trying to dodge the examples put to you.

You, sir, are a fucking bullshit artist.

GO BLOW JESUS OUT YOUR ASS.

My apologies for offending you. Perhaps I misunderstood? Please provide the two verses you believe contradict one another so we may discuss them together.

---

Why is the band Kiss so popular in gnome form?

I give up! Why is the bad kiss so popular in the gnome forum?

[ElDinero]

I'd say that father does not always mean father and son does not always mean son. For example, please tell me: What does the word father mean in this passage of the Bible? Does the word mean a biological father, or something else?

“Abraham is our father,” they answered. “If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do the things Abraham did."

(John 8:39)

Right, that's enough bullshit. In the CONTEXT (you guys love a bit of context), where both of those verses are in those long boring series of names that the Bible does over and over again where it lists a name and says they live so and so years and then beget some other name etc, presented in exactly the same way, it cannot be argued that this is supposed to be some symbolic reading of the word 'father'. How dare you be so disingenuous after I have had to lead you like a blind man point by point to these passages because of your laziness/evasiveness?

You've proven beyond a doubt that you will never acknowledge a contradiction even when it's staring you in the face. Go fuck yourself.

[Cato]

I give up! Why is the bad kiss so popular in the gnome forum?

Because Gene Simmons has likely trademarked the idea and will be around shortly to sue us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EctWe0uAt...4CFBC69B1B

[spockrates]

I'd say that father does not always mean father and son does not always mean son. For example, please tell me: What does the word father mean in this passage of the Bible? Does the word mean a biological father, or something else?

“Abraham is our father,” they answered. “If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do the things Abraham did."

(John 8:39)

Right, that's enough bullshit. In the CONTEXT (you guys love a bit of context), where both of those verses are in those long boring series of names that the Bible does over and over again where it lists a name and says they live so and so years and then beget some other name etc, presented in exactly the same way, it cannot be argued that this is supposed to be some symbolic reading of the word 'father'. How dare you be so disingenuous after I have had to lead you like a blind man point by point to these passages because of your laziness/evasiveness?

You've proven beyond a doubt that you will never acknowledge a contradiction even when it's staring you in the face. Go fuck yourself.

Please understand ElDinero that it is well known among Christian apologists that there are gaps in the genealogies of Luke and Matthew. This is not seen as a problem, because, to the ancient Jewish mind, the words, "son of," may mean descendant of. Elsewhere in Luke we read:


Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham."

(Luke 19:9)


Jesus was not saying the man he addressed was thousands of years old. He was saying the man was a true descendant of Abraham, for he was of the same mindset as his ancestor. I understand this is not the way modern thinkers speak, but the Bible was written by ancient people, using the expressions of ancient people. There might very well be genuine contradictions between biblical texts, but for the reasons given, I honestly don't believe the example you cited is one. It's more a matter of the text being ambiguous and unintentionally misleading.

I hope you won't mistake my playfulness for rudeness. If I have offended you by anything I said, please let me know. If it was my perceived ignorance that upset you, I hope my response will show you that, at least in this case, my inability to see the truth was not deliberate, nor real, but was merely apparent.

[Angrboda]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3966d0-kkTY

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NhqN0KcWAE

---

[spockrates]

FallenToReason:

I'd to take another look at your idea that Matthew contradicts Mark. Please forgive me for being so slow to see, but the two authors are saying the same thing about the fig tree, or so it seems to me. I'd appreciate it if you'd try to explain once more how Matthew is not only saying something contrary, but is also trying to correct some mistake of Mark having to do with Hosah. Maybe you'll cure me of my blind ignorance of the concept?

[Faith No More]

Those are not kiss gnomes. They are mini Kiss.

[spockrates]

Those are not kiss gnomes. They are mini Kiss.

If only those Kiss gnomes could shout it out loud! Just imagine what they'd sing! The questions I'd love to ask them, if only they could speak. As it is now, all you and I can do is put words in their mouths--words they might never say, were their tongues not still.

[Faith No More]

Just imagine what they'd sing!

Something sexual in its nature most likely.