The Biggest Contradiction

[Eponymic]

We all known about the vast number of Biblical contradictions. (The number which varies from 350-450 contradictory statements, depending on the source.) Even Christians know about, and go to extensive lengths to justify Biblical contradictions.

 

Frankly, the details of the contradictions themselves don't matter to me. What matters to me is there existence. And not just the existence of contradictions but if the Bible, or other tomes of faith, are taken as factual, historical tomes (or at least should be by everyone who claims it as their faith), then why do errors of geographical, choronological, and sociological natures exist?

 

Why does this mass of self-contradictory verses even exist?

 

With all the time to refine & repair these tomes they still, after 1,900 years of editing time, they still contain historical & editorial mistakes along with the contradictory statements. There is a plethora of other historical tomes from that era (and before that era) that, even when they have errors, still contain fewer mistakes than these tomes of ultimate faith.

 

That is the strongest contradiction to fully believing these books as holy or factual in any respect. If they cannot even get their own facts straight, even after massive editing, there's obviously something wrong and not on the level here. If it is truly God inspired, then none of these errors should even be in existence. They should've either gotten in right in the first place, or edited it properly after the first 500 years of editing.

 

Any true student of knowledge, when looking at this objectively can see that these religions aren't playing from an acceptable base.

[thunderbolt]

Hey, well said Eponymic!

[Mythra]

Since we have a conspicuous absence of fundies here lately, I'll take that part. But only this once.

 

What you have layed out is an absolutely excellent argument that God's word has been passed down to us accurately. Scribes over the years have refused to tamper with the Holy Scriptures, even to the point that they left known contradictions and problems in the Bible. They were faithful to pass it down to us from generation to generation without so much as a jot or tittle (that phrase titillates me) being altered.

 

We can trust the Bible being reproduced faithfully. Proving that God has been watching over it from the beginning. And, the contradictions that we perceive are only because at this time we "see through a glass darkly". Some day all will be revealed by our Lord Jesus when he comes to take us home to partake in the Heavenly gifts that our Father is waiting to shower upon us.

 

How was that?

 

Wait a minute. I think I need to get a scripture reference or two in here in order to look legitimate.

[thunderbolt]

How was that?

 

Wait a minute. I think I need to get a scripture reference or two in here in order to look legitimate.

And the Dove Award goes to Mythra.

Just brilliant! But I must admit, I was a tad bit disappointed in you not quoting something out of in context.

[Anakin]

We all known about the vast number of Biblical contradictions. (The number which varies from 350-450 contradictory statements, depending on the source.) Even Christians know about, and go to extensive lengths to justify Biblical contradictions.

Sometimes I think that with every "new translation" of the bible that xtians will just

"translate" those contradictions and bad stuff out. Then I think about how thankful I

am that we're in the 21st century and it may be too late for that. Too many watchful

eyes out there to hold them to the fire. So I guess for now they have to settle for

mental somersaults.

[Eponymic]

Sometimes I think that with every "new translation" of the bible that xtians will just

"translate" those contradictions and bad stuff out. Then I think about how thankful I

am that we're in the 21st century and it may be too late for that. Too many watchful

eyes out there to hold them to the fire. So I guess for now they have to settle for

mental somersaults.

 

True, and it's not so much even bad stuff, it's just outright stupid stuff that gets overlooked, like the geographical errors. They don't even know where things are and we're supposed to believe it. oy!

[Guest sub_zer0]

We all known about the vast number of Biblical contradictions. (The number which varies from 350-450 contradictory statements, depending on the source.) Even Christians know about, and go to extensive lengths to justify Biblical contradictions.

 

Not really extensive, but you are right they are justified.

 

Frankly, the details of the contradictions themselves don't matter to me. What matters to me is there existence. And not just the existence of contradictions but if the Bible, or other tomes of faith, are taken as factual, historical tomes (or at least should be by everyone who claims it as their faith), then why do errors of geographical, choronological, and sociological natures exist?

 

They aren't errors to begin with, they can all be justified with reasonable answers. Reasonable for me and anybody else with an ounce of faith in God and His word. I would hope so at least.

 

Why does this mass of self-contradictory verses even exist?

 

With all the time to refine & repair these tomes they still, after 1,900 years of editing time, they still contain historical & editorial mistakes along with the contradictory statements. There is a plethora of other historical tomes from that era (and before that era) that, even when they have errors, still contain fewer mistakes than these tomes of ultimate faith.

 

The word of God (or tome), was never refined or rapaired or altered through the thousands of years of copying the originals, then copying those, etc, etc...

 

That is the strongest contradiction to fully believing these books as holy or factual in any respect. If they cannot even get their own facts straight, even after massive editing, there's obviously something wrong and not on the level here. If it is truly God inspired, then none of these errors should even be in existence. They should've either gotten in right in the first place, or edited it properly after the first 500 years of editing.

 

There was no "massive editing" in the first place as you say, perhaps copyist errors. It is God inspired and none of those errors exist. To someone wanting to believe, unlike yourself, the ways Christians justify these so-called contradictions should suffice.

 

Sometimes I think that with every "new translation" of the bible that xtians will just

"translate" those contradictions and bad stuff out. Then I think about how thankful I

am that we're in the 21st century and it may be too late for that. Too many watchful

eyes out there to hold them to the fire. So I guess for now they have to settle for

mental somersaults.

 

True, and it's not so much even bad stuff, it's just outright stupid stuff that gets overlooked, like the geographical errors. They don't even know where things are and we're supposed to believe it. oy!

 

Actually, false.

 

Some new translations cause more errors in fact because of their attempt to make the reading more contemperary and not a literal rendering from the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.

[white_raven23]

Some new translations cause more errors in fact because of their attempt to make the reading more contemperary and not a literal rendering from the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.

 

Please provide direct evidence regarding the source material for the different bible translations. Provide evidence that the translation differences really are "an attempt to make the reading more contemporary" and are not the result of increased understanding regarding the definitions of original greek and hebrew works.

 

And.......why should "we" be required to translate God's inspired Word? Shouldn't the very sacredness of such communication be instantly understood by all who read it? Shouldn't the power and truth of "the word" be clear and understood regardless of the language of the reader?

 

Surely "God's Word" would have the power to do such a simple thing. Especially if it's the "truth".

[Mythra]

They aren't errors to begin with, they can all be justified with reasonable answers. Reasonable for me and anybody else with an ounce of faith in God and His word. I would hope so at least.

 

OK, sub_hero: Fire away. Go to "A Christian's Innerancy Challenge" and get started. Knock yourself out. Let's see what ya got.

 

I'll bump it up so you can find it. It's also in the Colliseum.

[Checkmate]

............

They aren't errors to begin with, they can all be justified with reasonable answers. Reasonable for me and anybody else with an ounce of faith in God and His word. I would hope so at least.

.............

What a classic case of delusion and dementia. zer0, you really should read this link.

Understanding Delusion. You need help.

 

Y'know, I've decided that I'm going to chase every Xian visitor around this forum, waving this particular link in their smug, deluded faces, until they either get tired of me and leave, OR they admit that they are deluded and wrong. Living in denial is NOT healthy.

[white_raven23]

.

[Eponymic]

Not really extensive, but you are right they are justified.

 

They aren't errors to begin with, they can all be justified with reasonable answers. Reasonable for me and anybody else with an ounce of faith in God and His word. I would hope so at least.

 

My. This is the intellectual equivalent of saying, "Nyeh nuyeh nyeh nyah, I can't here you. Lalalalalalala."

 

You basically just said that nothing I said was right without giving any evidence or reason they're wrong other than your opinion. That doesn't hold any weight here. In fact, it seems quite a bit childish when most people around here debate with a certain effluence.

 

Let's take just one of the simple geographical problems as described by Dennis McKinsey:

 

Nearly all critics agree there is no such place near salim. (4) "Then he returned from the region of Tyre, and went through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, through the region of the Decapolis" (Mark 7:31 RSV). The geographical knowledge of Mark's author is questionable in that it's hard to imagine going from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee by passing through Sidon, much less the region of Decapolis. Sidon is to the north of Tyre and the Sea of Galilee while Decapolis is to the south of Tyre and the Sea of Galilee. This assertion was made by Mark when there were no coasts of Decapolis, nor was the name so much as known before the reign of the emperor Nero.

 

Yup. That's the work of a perfect God. Letting his people talk about places that aren't in the right direction or even close to where they're talking about.

 

The word of God (or tome), was never refined or rapaired or altered through the thousands of years of copying the originals, then copying those, etc, etc...

 

There was no "massive editing" in the first place as you say, perhaps copyist errors. It is God inspired and none of those errors exist. To someone wanting to believe, unlike yourself, the ways Christians justify these so-called contradictions should suffice.

 

Yup that council of Nicea was REAAALLLY quick. Only took them 400 years to get rid of all those gospels & canons they decided didn't need to be in the Bible in the first place.

[Anakin]

They aren't errors to begin with, they can all be justified with reasonable answers. Reasonable for me and anybody else with an ounce of faith in God and His word. I would hope so at least.

Domo Arigato, Mr. Roboto. I just knew there was a logical reason for so many contridictions.

We're just not reasonable enough and haven't an ounce of faith in god and his word.

[Eponymic]

Surely "God's Word" would have the power to do such a simple thing. Especially if it's the "truth".

 

Yeah, really. Go figure there.

 

Why does God see the need to confuse us.

 

If he wants us to understand, and knows we're not all that bright as a species, you figured he would've started with a kiddy's Bible first & worked up from there.

 

'No, he's not confusing us, we're just not capable of understanding the full meaning yet.'

 

Well, I don't understand quantum physics, molecular biology, ancient philosophy, or many other things, but I at least can make sense of them when given information about it.

[dibby]

The biggest contradiction? The |Sermon on the Mount and the lifestyles of born again christians.

[Eponymic]

The biggest contradiction? The Sermon on the Mount and the lifestyles of born again christians.

 

Indeed there often is a substantial seperation between the two.

[SkepticOfBible]

They aren't errors to begin with, they can all be justified with reasonable answers. Reasonable for me and anybody else with an ounce of faith in God and His word. I would hope so at least.

 

You are correct to say, that these justification are reasonable for faith of a believer, however they fall flat on their face when put under a scrutiny of a skeptic. I have no doubt in my mind that if a Muslim and Mormon apologetic gave the sort of explanation you and your bretherns give for the difficult verses, you would too become a bonafide skeptic and reject those claims.

 

And I totally understand your position, you fear your god so much that you are afraid to look at the bible from a skeptic POV, least something bad happens. Well I guess if every Sunday if you keep hearing "fear God, fear God, fear God", even I might behave like you.

 

The word of God (or tome), was never refined or rapaired or altered through the thousands of years of copying the originals, then copying those, etc, etc...

 

Maybe in your myoptic fantasy world, not in the real world.

 

What lies? There are more variation in the NT manuscripts than there are words. THAT IS A PROVEN FACT

 

 

 

There was no "massive editing" in the first place as you say, perhaps copyist errors.

 

if there are no "massive editing" then please explain why the following verses are not found in the earlier manuscript

 

1)I John 5:7-8 (KJV)

2)Mark 16:9-20

3)John 8:1-11(The story of the adulterous woman)

 

And while you are at, please explain the variation in the manuscript as described by the following website

 

Many Traditional Passages Have been Pronounced Unauthentic, Doubtful or Changed by Modern Textual Critics

 

It is God inspired and none of those errors exist.

 

And your proof for God's inspiration is?

[Mythra]

The word of God (or tome), was never refined or rapaired or altered through the thousands of years of copying the originals, then copying those, etc, etc...

 

Sorry dude. Once in awhile we gotta call bullshit.

 

In the third century, Origen condemned christian scribes for their "depraved audacity" in altering the texts.

 

In the fourth century, Eusebius admits that the NT texts were tampered with ( see H.E. 29.6-7.)

 

Even the earliest extant copy of the NT - Codex Sinaiticus (4th century) is known to have been altered by three different scribes. (documented by Constantine Tishendorf - the NT scholar who discovered this manuscript in 1844);

 

In the early 20th century, Herman von Soden recorded 45,000 variants between the NT manuscripts, detailing how they had been altered over time.

 

Some of these alterations and additions are significant - such as the passages detailing a risen Jesus at the conclusion of Mark which are not present in the earliest manuscripts.

[SkepticOfBible]

 

 

Sorry dude. Once in awhile we gotta call bullshit.

 

In the third century, Origen condemned christian scribes for their "depraved audacity" in altering the texts.

 

In the fourth century, Eusebius admits that the NT texts were tampered with ( see H.E. 29.6-7.)

 

Even the earliest extant copy of the NT - Codex Sinaiticus (4th century) is known to have been altered by three different scribes. (documented by Constantine Tishendorf - the NT scholar who discovered this manuscript in 1844);

 

In the early 20th century, Herman von Soden recorded 45,000 variants between the NT manuscripts, detailing how they had been altered over time.

 

 

Thanks for the info. Do you have links for the comment made by these people.

[Mythra]

Thanks for the info. Do you have links for the comment made by these people.

 

I can dig up the verbatim quotes Here when I get more time after work. (Although Eusebius won't be found there)

 

Here is the article on New Testment Textual Problems.

[Eponymic]

I can dig up the verbatim quotes Here when I get more time after work. (Although Eusebius won't be found there)

 

 

Thanks also for pointing out a few of the more glaring examples.

[Mythra]

Here is the Origen quote in it's entirety:

 

"The differences among the manuscripts [of the Gospels] have become great, either through the negligency of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others." (p 152) -- The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, by Bruce M. Metzger, 3rd edition, 1992, Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford

 

 

Do you really think that the writer of the Book of Revelation (in the second century C.E.) would have had to threaten eternal damnation for anyone changing his writings - if the practice wasn't rampant?

 

"If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. "

 

Looks to me like there are two unpardonable sins.

[Mythra]

I'm just starting to read "Misquoting Jesus" by NT Scholar Bart D. Ehrman. In the intro to his book, he says this:

 

It is one thing to say that the originals were inspired, but the reality is that we don't have the originals - so saying they were inspired doesn't help me much, unless I can reconstruct the originals. Moreover the vast majority of Christians for the entire history of the church have not had access to the originals, making their inspiration something of a moot point. Not only do we not have the originals, we don't have the first copies of the originals. We don't even have copies of the copies of the originals, or copies of the copies of the copies of the originals. What we have are copies made later - much later. In most instances, they are copies made many centuries later. And these copies all differ from one another, in many thousands of places. As we will see later in this book, these copies differ from one another in so many places that we don't even know how many differences there are. Possibly it is easiest to put it in comparative terms: there are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

[Guest sub_zer0]

Maybe in your myoptic fantasy world, not in the real world.

 

What lies? There are more variation in the NT manuscripts than there are words. THAT IS A PROVEN FACT

 

Yep, but if you dug deeper you would find out that a lot of those differences, or variations are minor in that they do not affect doctrinal elements.

 

There was no "massive editing" in the first place as you say, perhaps copyist errors.

 

if there are no "massive editing" then please explain why the following verses are not found in the earlier manuscript

 

1)I John 5:7-8 (KJV)

2)Mark 16:9-20

3)John 8:1-11(The story of the adulterous woman)

 

Before I address those, be specific. What is your specific question or contradiction you see in those verses. We will start with number 1, go....

 

I'm just starting to read "Misquoting Jesus" by NT Scholar Bart D. Ehrman. In the intro to his book, he says this:

 

It is one thing to say that the originals were inspired, but the reality is that we don't have the originals - so saying they were inspired doesn't help me much, unless I can reconstruct the originals. Moreover the vast majority of Christians for the entire history of the church have not had access to the originals, making their inspiration something of a moot point. Not only do we not have the originals, we don't have the first copies of the originals. We don't even have copies of the copies of the originals, or copies of the copies of the copies of the originals. What we have are copies made later - much later. In most instances, they are copies made many centuries later. And these copies all differ from one another, in many thousands of places. As we will see later in this book, these copies differ from one another in so many places that we don't even know how many differences there are. Possibly it is easiest to put it in comparative terms: there are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.

 

Yep, and that is why there is Textual Criticism.

 

He forgot to mention that the copying of the originals is very reliable.

[thunderbolt]

He forgot to mention that the copying of the originals is very reliable.

Prove it!