Does the Bible Contradict Itself?

[Mystic]

Spockrates, since you admitted I showed a contradiction, what's the next step? Admitting Bible is partially correct or partially incorrect?

The thing is how do you know which one of these two contradictory positions is the accurate one?

Also, if there is contradictions, why do you trust the Bible at all?

[Undeceived]

[pgrimes15]

[Undeceived]

See: http://www.rationalchristianity.net/last_words.html
Neither verse is exclusive, saying "these were his very last words." The Gospels often move from one action to the next when in reality they did not occur sequentially. Compare Mark and John. Mark often uses the words "Then" and "Immediately" after Jesus had just said one thing or another. John records the full conversation. Are the two accounts in conflict? No, they both happened. Passages of time such as "then", "immediately" and "and having said thus" are relative and subject to the person writing.

e.g. "It is finished, Father; into your hands I commit my spirit."

OOhhhhhh !!! That's a bit of a stretch. These are simply your interpretations and speculations about what the author left in or left out, not what the passages actually say.
Remember the OP asked for contradictory passages, not ones that could not under any circumstances be interpreted to be consistent.

It is your interpretation/speculation that the phrase "And having said thus" means "immediately after he said this". I appealed to other portions of the Bible to find a historical context--since NT authors wrote different than people write now. You appealed to your opinion of how the modern English language should be used, which has little to do with 1st century Greek. "And having said thus" was a common literary phrase. Here are similar examples:
Acts 1:9 "And having said these things he was taken up, they beholding him, and a cloud received him out of their sight."
John 11:28 "And these things having said, she went away, and called Mary her sister privately, saying, 'The Teacher is present, and doth call thee.'"
Luke 19:28 "Having said these things, he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem."
John 7:9 "Having said these things to them, he stayed in Galilee."
John 20:20 "Having said this he showed them his hands and also his side."
John 13:21 "Having said this, Jesus was troubled in spirit and testified, “Very truly I tell you, one of you is going to betray me.'”
Are any of these immediately after the fact? Or do you suppose Jesus said a few words and something transpired between? Don't let Jesus' death deceive you--his giving up his spirit is no more immediate than any other action of his.
It should be noted that several of these have alternate translations of "After he said this."
Consider John 11:27-28 closer. Martha is talking:

“Yes, Lord,” she replied, “I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.”
After she had said this, she went back and called her sister Mary aside. “The Teacher is here,” she said, “and is asking for you.”

Do you believe nothing more was said between Mary's confession and her going back to the house?
Or John 20:19-20:

When therefore it was evening, on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were locked where the disciples were assembled, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them, "Peace be to you." When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad when they saw the Lord.
However, Luke (24:38) records Jesus saying "Why are you troubled? Why do doubts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is truly me. Touch me and see, for a spirit doesn't have flesh and bones, as you see that I have."

Is it not logical for Jesus to have announced his intentions before showing his wounds? A quick browse through a concordance would confirm to you the subjectivity of time in our verses in question.

[spockrates]

[spockrates]

Spockrates, since you admitted I showed a contradiction, what's the next step? Admitting Bible is partially correct or partially incorrect?

The thing is how do you know which one of these two contradictory positions is the accurate one?

Also, if there is contradictions, why do you trust the Bible at all?

I apologize. I've been multitasking so muck in this discussion thread that I'm unsure about what biblical verses you are speaking. Are you referring to the ambiguity of John, chapter 3 resulting in contrary interpretations regarding the way to get to heaven?

If so, I would not call examples of this contradictions between biblical texts. Instead, as I might have already said, they are contradictions between the opinions of what the unclear texts might mean.

So the question I think you are asking is this: How do I deal with these ambiguities without losing faith (that is trust) in the reliability of the Bible? Have I more clearly stated you query?

---

Hey, everyone, if I have not responded to any post, please let me know. I'm trying to reply to everyone.

[pgrimes15]

OK I give up.

If you are allowed such leeway in an attempt to reconcile verses that :-

- any timeline can be imagined ("ancient authors were not so concerned with chronology")

- any imagined extra text can be inserted. (i.e. "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.")

- any contradiction in a number or name can be dismissed as mistranslation.

then I cannot imagine ANY pair of sentences that CANNOT be reconciled as non-contradictory.

Turning the OP on its' head, can anyone construct a hypothetical pair of statements that would be construed as unambiguously contradictory, given the leeway in treatment that I have mentioned above.

Could it at least be said that the passages

2KI 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.

2CH 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.

are contradictory even if the contradiction is caused by a mistranslation thus answering the OPs question.

Regards

Grimesy

[spockrates]

OOhhhhhh !!! That's a bit of a stretch. These are simply your interpretations and speculations about what the author left in or left out, not what the passages actually say.
Remember the OP asked for contradictory passages, not ones that could not under any circumstances be interpreted to be consistent.

It is your interpretation/speculation that the phrase "And having said thus" means "immediately after he said this". I appealed to other portions of the Bible to find a historical context--since NT authors wrote different than people write now. You appealed to your opinion of how the modern English language should be used, which has little to do with 1st century Greek. "And having said thus" was a common literary phrase. Here are similar examples:
Acts 1:9 "And having said these things he was taken up, they beholding him, and a cloud received him out of their sight."
John 11:28 "And these things having said, she went away, and called Mary her sister privately, saying, 'The Teacher is present, and doth call thee.'"
Luke 19:28 "Having said these things, he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem."
John 7:9 "Having said these things to them, he stayed in Galilee."
John 20:20 "Having said this he showed them his hands and also his side."
John 13:21 "Having said this, Jesus was troubled in spirit and testified, “Very truly I tell you, one of you is going to betray me.'”
Are any of these immediately after the fact? Or do you suppose Jesus said a few words and something transpired between? Don't let Jesus' death deceive you--his giving up his spirit is no more immediate than any other action of his.
It should be noted that several of these have alternate translations of "After he said this."
Consider John 11:27-28 closer. Martha is talking:

“Yes, Lord,” she replied, “I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.”
After she had said this, she went back and called her sister Mary aside. “The Teacher is here,” she said, “and is asking for you.”

Do you believe nothing more was said between Mary's confession and her going back to the house?
Or John 20:19-20:

When therefore it was evening, on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were locked where the disciples were assembled, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them, "Peace be to you." When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad when they saw the Lord.
However, Luke (24:38) records Jesus saying "Why are you troubled? Why do doubts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is truly me. Touch me and see, for a spirit doesn't have flesh and bones, as you see that I have."

Is it not logical for Jesus to have announced his intentions before showing his wounds? A quick browse through a concordance would confirm to you the subjectivity of time in our verses in question.

I'd say that you both make a good point, and either of you might be correct. The texts are simply too ambiguous to say either way. Perhaps you should both agree to disagree on this one?

[pgrimes15]

[I'd say that you both make a good point, and either of you might be correct. The texts are simply too ambiguous to say either way. Perhaps you should both agree to disagree on this one?

Yes perhaps you're right Spockrates, it is getting down to nit picking and "angels on a pinhead" territory. I have enjoyed this thread and learning about (what some people say are) biblical contradictions.

From my atheist viewpoint, what I see is that christians who make a presupposition of the existence of god defend "their" bible against charges of not being the word of God using some quite imaginative reasoning to "shoehorn" the conclusion of inerrancy into their thinking.

On the other hand I could be charged with only being interested in nay-saying the bible because I have a presupposition that there is no evidence to suggest it is anything other than an ancient book written by ancient and fallible men.

In other words I'm don't believe in God, but others do - we sort of knew this already.

Regards

Grimesy

Incidentally, I have just finished watching all the Star Trek films in order, finishing with the latest re-tread version. Brilliant !! The Star Trek universe is heaven for some atheists.

[spockrates]

[I'd say that you both make a good point, and either of you might be correct. The texts are simply too ambiguous to say either way. Perhaps you should both agree to disagree on this one?

Yes perhaps you're right Spockrates, it is getting down to nit picking and "angels on a pinhead" territory. I have enjoyed this thread and learning about (what some people say are) biblical contradictions.

From my atheist viewpoint, what I see is that christians who make a presupposition of the existence of god defend "their" bible against charges of not being the word of God using some quite imaginative reasoning to "shoehorn" the conclusion of inerrancy into their thinking.

On the other hand I could be charged with only being interested in nay-saying the bible because I have a presupposition that there is no evidence to suggest it is anything other than an ancient book written by ancient and fallible men.

In other words I'm don't believe in God, but others do - we sort of knew this already.

Regards

Grimesy

Incidentally, I have just finished watching all the Star Trek films in order, finishing with the latest re-tread version. Brilliant !! The Star Trek universe is heaven for some atheists.

Yes Grimesy, Star Trek 2009 is an excellent film! Looking forward to the sequel, which I believe is coming out later this year. For a kick, you might try watching the 52 episodes of the original TV show online. Much of the humor and character development has its origin in that series. Hulu.com offers this, as do some other websites.

Regarding contradictions, errors and ambiguities of the biblical texts, I actually find it fascinating there are not more, considering that the Bible is not one book, but more than 60. It was written by more than 40 authors, of different backgrounds, living in different nations, over a period of thousands of years. I mean, put 40 scientists in a room, and you're likely to witness some lively arguments about String Theory, or some other hot topic. Use a time machine to gather scientists from different centuries and ask them a question on a hot topic, I doubt there would be much agreement among them!

Such disagreements, for the most part, seem absent from the Bible. Sure, Luke might have thought that Jesus' last words were different from what John, who witnessed the crucifixion knew them to be, but John never disagrees with Luke that Jesus said what Luke quoted him as saying. So I'm thinking that the flaws examined so far in our investigation are not so great as to give a believer good reason to doubt that Jesus said, or did anything these authors claim he said or did. I suppose they don't give any person who has already decided to not believe any good reason to change her mind either.

Perhaps the Bible alone is not enough to cause one to decide either way. But I hope that those of us who have already made their decisions have a greater appreciation for those who have made the opposite decision. I hope we agree there are thoughtful and reasonable people on both sides of the question, even if we think they're mistaken!