Does the Bible Contradict Itself?

[liam]

Does the Bible Contradict Itself?

Does the pope abuse his position at the vatican to protect paedophiles?

[spockrates]

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

True. Contrary they are, but significantly so?

I actually was recently shown a contradiction of biblical texts (and of biblical propotions?) by a Mormon, which appears both genuine and significant. Would you care to consider it with me, or would you like to move on to fresher discussions topics?

---

Does the Bible Contradict Itself?

Does the pope abuse his position at the vatican to protect paedophiles?

Benedict, the current pope, has made the decision that law enforcement will now be contacted when any accusation of child abuse is made. A change for the better, I think (or at least that means the answer to your question is no).

:p

[Undeceived]

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

Good points. Obviously I didn't prove there wasn't a contradiction. Our conclusions depend on our presuppositions. Once again, believing is done with the heart, not the mind. I hope to see you around, Grimsey.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Does the Bible Contradict Itself?

Does the pope abuse his position at the vatican to protect paedophiles?

What? Rather silly strawman.

[Minimalist]

Does the Bible Contradict Itself?

Does the pope abuse his position at the vatican to protect paedophiles?

Of course he does not abuse it. It's his job to protect pedopriests.

[spockrates]

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

Good points. Obviously I didn't prove there wasn't a contradiction. Our conclusions depend on our presuppositions. Once again, believing is done with the heart, not the mind. I hope to see you around, Grimsey.

Undeceived:

We haven't spoken much this thread, but I was glad to have you here. Something you said confused me. Mind if I ask you to explain? You said believing is done with the heart, not the mind. I'm insure about what heart you are speaking and how it differs from the mind.

---

Does the pope abuse his position at the vatican to protect paedophiles?

What? Rather silly strawman.

Not a straw man, though perhaps not a good analogy. Funny joke to some, I suppose.

---

Does the pope abuse his position at the vatican to protect paedophiles?

Of course he does not abuse it. It's his job to protect pedopriests.

Then he is not doing his job well, I'd say! Calling the police whenever an accusation is made exposes, rather than protects them. Unless by protect you mean to protect them from themselves.

:p

[Faith No More]

Does the pope abuse his position at the vatican to protect paedophiles?

What? Rather silly strawman.

It's not a strawman, pad. It's highlighting a question that you feel has an obvious affirmitive answer by asking another question with an obvious affirmitive answer. For example, if someone was to ask, "Is fast food bad for you?" You would reply with another question with an obvious affirmitive answer, and most commonly the one used is, "Does a bear shit in the woods?"

[Minimalist]

[liam]

Not a straw man, though perhaps not a good analogy. Funny joke to some, I suppose.

Paedophilia is hardly a joke...
However, if you're assuming that I was accusing the pope in jest then you're thoroughly mistaken. The vatican has a long record of this sort of thing and there isn't much that is endearing about the pope's claim that they can 'mend' priests or bishops who have been found guilty of sexual offences. The church flexes its muscles on a whole manner of cases where the clergy are involved and this is simply the one I chose for effect because of the severity of the crime.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Not a straw man, though perhaps not a good analogy. Funny joke to some, I suppose.

Oh,it was A JOKE. I saw it as an as argument,but unrelated to the topic.That makes it a strawman.

The question is too serious to me to be funny.However, I agree with George Carlin; we should be able to make a joke about anything. I guess I need to lighten up.


The answers is of course 'yes' . The church has always arrogantly insisted that canon law trumps civil law. Regardless of the obscenity of the endemic child abuse ,that position has not changed one iota. The Catholic church is now and has always been a corrupt and criminal organisation*

*PS same goes for organised religion generally. The Catholic church is simply the best at what it does due to the time frame. However,to be fair,the Mormons and the mega happy clappy churches are catching up fast.