Do you think the bible has contradictions?

[Starcrash]

QUOTE:

But maybe you don't like clicking links, or you feel that these are too numerous and disparate to answers. Let's just throw one out here to discuss. Both Matthew 28:8 and Luke 24:9 tell us that the women who saw Jesus after his death immediately went and told the disciples about it. According to Mark 16:8, they told no one. These events are clearly contradictory, as they are mutually exclusive -- they couldn't both tell and not tell the disciples, which is why it leads to different outcomes (in fact, all 4 gospels have entirely different stories about what happens after the resurrection, having nothing in common).

END QUOTE...........

I've seen these passages used before.............try reading, and reading again, with an eye to understand the differences in styles of writings, and you will see that there is not a contradiction........just saying......took me awhile too!

If that were true, then why didn't you even give me one example? The reason I started with numerical contradictions is that it's awfully hard to read 2 different numbers as being the same... it doesn't leave much room for "a second interpretation".

 

[Starcrash]

If you think it does, you have not studied well.

Have you studied? Have you looked over the ones I referenced on page 2 of this forum?

But the reason I'm responding is that this statement you made doesn't even make sense. One cannot "study" to find that the bible contains no contradictions... the best one can reasonably say is that "a contradiction hasn't been found yet" or "I haven't come across a contradiction that I believe to be valid". There's simply no way to prove that something has no mistakes or errors, except to demonstrate the lack of them found up to this point.

Seriously, though, if you haven't found contradictions it's because you haven't been looking for them. Some chapters contain so many that simple study of any sort in these areas should've caused you to run into a mistake. But generally, Christians don't run into mistakes like these because they don't follow the stories by reading back and forth between books to follow the story, but rather they read one book at a time.

 

[hootowl]

That is what happens

Everybody tells a different story with 47 different people what a story about the same thing.
Maybe he just got fed up and decided to just disappear and start a new life somewhere else. Would not be hard to change your identity in those days. Maybe he started his own lineage and we have heaps of little Jesus we know nothing about.

He would not have had to get married they could all have been immaculate conceptions.

People are walking around today with bullets still lodged in the their brain so why not Jesus with wounds?

Only asking

Hoot Owl

 

[hootowl]

Starcrash

That is called research lol

Hoot Owl

 

[Starcrash]

I voted "yes". I *think* it has contradictions. Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding, but almost every time I read the bible, I see words that seem to go opposite other words I've read in the past. Even on this site, I see people in heated debates quoting different scriptures that support somewhat opposite views. No one can even agree on a meaning sometimes, because everyone thinks their own interpretations are the correct ones to be emphasized.

I can think of an example, but I don't want to derail.

One can have a "liberal" or "moderate" interpretation of the bible... you don't have to believe that the bible is perfect and without mistakes to believe it contains "truths". You can still be a Christian without being a fundamentalist. So I liked your post, and thought it was quite reasonable.

 

[Graybeard]

Does nobody else see this wolf in sheep's clothing??????...this TROLL of a person with their polite insults??

 

[Starcrash]

Hi Star Crash

Do you have a site for one of those books ? Would love to read one.

HootOwl

I cited it, but here it is again.

 

[Imperfect]

there are no contradictions. only misunderstandings.

for example, a atheist is fast to call a misunderstanding, rubbish or a contradiction. like the genesis 1 subject i made a thread about. a atheist would call that a contradiction and therefore, completely block off any explanation.


like i always say, just because YOU dont understand it, doesnt mean nobody else does.
and just because you dont understand it, doesnt make it irrelevant.

 

[DemonHunter81]

If you want my total honest opinion I believe if allowed by the law Christians would kill unbelievers in Gods name then go into self-denial. You have seen it happen in your own time with the Muslims and their Allah.

I do not have to think they would. They have already done it just look at your history.

Instead of putting others down for their beliefs please dwell on the atrocities Christians have committed in the name of their God and you should all be on your knees begging forgiveness.

Not dictating to others about what you think they have done wrong PLEASE SAVE YOUR OWN SOULS LEAVE OURS ALONE

This is why people come in and have a go when there are topics that they do not agree with.

Because and I will put my cards on the table the propaganda is false till can be proved true.

If I have offended I am sorry but that is the way it is and that is the way it always will be till proven otherwise.

Please take care everybody and take this the way it was meant to be written AS IT IS

Hoot Owl

Yeah....about the Crusades....

Every part of this myth is a lie. By the rules that Muslims claim for themselves, the Crusades were perfectly justified, and the excesses (though beneath Christian standards) pale in comparison with the historical treatment of conquered populations at the hands of Muslims.
Here are some quick facts…
The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after the capital of the Christian world, Rome itself, was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.
By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.
Europe had been harassed by Muslims since the first few years following Muhammad’s death. As early as 652, Muhammad’s followers launched raids on the island of Sicily, waging a full-scale occupation 200 years later that lasted almost a century and was punctuated by massacres, such as that at the town of Castrogiovanni, in which 8,000 Christians were put to death. In 1084, ten years before the first crusade, Muslims staged another devastating Sicilian raid, burning churches in Reggio, enslaving monks and raping an abbey of nuns before carrying them into captivity.
In 1095, Byzantine Emperor, Alexius I Comneus began begging the pope in Rome for help in turning back the Muslim armies which were overrunning what is now Turkey, grabbing property as they went and turning churches into mosques. Several hundred thousand Christians had been killed in Anatolia alone in the decades following 1050 by Seljuk invaders interested in 'converting' the survivors to Islam.
Not only were Christians losing their lives in their own lands to the Muslim advance but pilgrims to the Holy Land from other parts of Europe were being harassed, kidnapped, molested, forcibly converted to Islam and occasionally murdered. (Compare this to Islam’s justification for slaughter on the basis of Muslims being denied access to the Meccan pilgrimage in Muhammad’s time).
Renowned scholar Bernard Lewis points out that the Crusades, though "often compared with the Muslim jihad, was a delayed and limited response to the jihad and in part also an imitation.... Forgiveness for sins to those who fought in defence of the holy Church of God and the Christian religion and polity, and eternal life for those fighting the infidel: these ideas... clearly reflect the Muslim notion of jihad."
Lewis goes on to state that, "unlike the jihad, it [the Crusade] was concerned primarily with the defense or reconquest of threatened or lost Christian territory... The Muslim jihad, in contrast, was perceived as unlimited, as a religious obligation that would continue until all the world had either adopted the Muslim faith or submitted to Muslim rule... The object of jihad is to bring the whole world under Islamic law."
The Crusaders only invaded lands that were Christian. They did not attack Saudi Arabia (other than a half-hearted expedition by a minor figure) or sack Mecca, as the Muslims had done (and continued doing) to Italy and Constantinople. Their primary goal was the recapture of Jerusalem and the security of safe passage for pilgrims. The toppling of the Muslim empire was not on the agenda.
The period of Crusader “occupation” (of its own former land) was stretched tenuously over about 170 years, which is less than the Muslim occupation of Sicily and southern Italy alone - to say nothing of Spain and other lands that had never been Islamic before falling victim to Jihad. In fact, the Arab occupation of North Africa and Middle Eastern lands outside of Arabia is almost 1400 years old.
Despite popular depiction, the Crusades were not a titanic battle between Christianity and Islam. Although originally dispatched by papal decree, the "occupiers" quickly became part of the political and economic fabric of the Middle East without much regard for religious differences. Their arrival was largely accepted by the local population as simply another change in authority. Muslim radicals even lamented the fact that many of their co-religionists preferred to live under Frankish (Christian) rule than migrate to Muslim lands.
The Islamic world was split into warring factions, many of which allied themselves with the Frankish princes against each other at one time or another. This even included Saladin, the Kurdish warrior who is credited with eventually ousting the "Crusaders." Contrary to recent propaganda, however, Saladin had little interest in holy war until a rogue Frankish prince began disrupting his trade routes. Both before and after the taking of Jerusalem, his armies spent far more time and resources battling fellow Muslims.
For its part, the Byzantine (Eastern Christian) Empire preferred to have little to do with the Crusader kingdoms and went so far as to sign treaties with their Muslim rivals on occasion.
Another misconception is that the Crusader era was a time of constant war. In fact, very little of this overall period included significant hostilities. In response to Muslim expansion or aggression, there were only about 20 years of actual military campaigning, much of which was spent on organization and travel. (They were from 1098-1099, 1146-1148, 1188-1192, 1201-1204, 1218-1221, 1228-1229, and 1248-1250). By comparison, the Muslim Jihad against the island of Sicily alone lasted 75 grinding years.
Ironically, the Crusades are justified by the Quran itself, which encourages Holy War in order to "drive them out of the places from whence they drove you out" (2:191), even though the aim wasn't to expel Muslims from the Middle East, but more to bring an end to the molestation of pilgrims. Holy war is not justified by New Testament teachings, which is why the Crusades are an anomaly, the brief interruption of centuries of relentless Jihad against Christianity that began long before and continued well after.
The greatest crime of the Crusaders was the sacking of Jerusalem, in which at least 3,000 people were said to have been massacred. This number is dwarfed by the number of Jihad victims, from India to Constantinople, Africa and Narbonne, but Muslims have never apologized for their crimes and never will.
What is called 'sin and excess' by other religions, is what Islam refers to as duty willed by Allah.

 

[DemonHunter81]

Also, hootowl, the fundamental differences between Muslims and Christians is that the Muslim text itself tells their followers to kill. They've been doing it since Islam's inception. What you are seeing in modern day is what they have been doing since forever.

 

[DemonHunter81]

http://blogs.christianpost.com/confident-christian/do-the-gospel-resurrection-accounts-contradict-each-other-15311/

 

[DemonHunter81]

Hi demon

Exactly what historical evidence ?? Oh sorry you may have meant HYSTERICAL I again stand corrected.

If you look at my other post you will see I am not trying to take anything away from you.

Ok I come in to stir I know that and honestly a lot of you do leave yourselves wide open to it.

But a pile of rags that there is no proof of ? A few pieces of Junk wood found on a mountain top somewhere? Oh I forgot about the written proof. But written by whom is the question ?

TESTIMONY IS NOT FACT.

HootOwl

Dig that hole deeper.

External evidence from both archaeology and non-Christian writers confirms that the Bible--both Old and New Testaments -- is a trustworthy historical document. Archaeologist Joseph Free has said that "Archaeology has confirmed countless passages which had been rejected by critics as unhistorical or contrary to known facts." [1] Renowned Jewish archaeologist Nelson Gluek confidently said that "It ... may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible." [2] Christian apologist Josh McDowell tells us that "After personally trying to shatter the historicity and validity of the Scriptures, I have come to the conclusion that they are historically trustworthy." [3]

Some scholars once said that Moses couldn't have written the first five books of the Bible (as the Bible says) because writing was largely unknown in his day. Then, archaeology proved otherwise by the discovery of many other written codes of the period: the code of Hammurabi (ca. 1700 B.C.), the Lipit-Ishtar code (ca. 1860), and the Laws of Eshnunna (ca. 1950 B.C.).

Critics used to say that the biblical description of the Hittite Empire was wrong because the Hittite Empire (they though) didn't even exist! Then archaeologists discovered the Hittite capital in 1906 and discovered that the Hittite's were actually a very vast and prominent civilization. Archaeological and linguistic evidence is increasingly pointing to a sixth-century B.C. date for the book of Daniel, in spite of the many critics who attempt to late-date Daniel and make it a prophecy after the detailed events it predicts.

For the New Testament, Dr. G.R. Habermas points out that within 110 years of Christ's crucifixion, approximately eighteen non-Christian sources mention more than "one hundred facts, beliefs, and teachings from the life of Christ and early Christendom. These items, I might add, mention almost every major detail of Jesus' life, including miracles, the Resurrection, and His claims to deity." [4] Sir William Ramsey, one of the greatest archeologists to ever live, demonstrated that Luke made no mistakes in references to 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands.

Liberal scholars used to argue that a town named Nazareth didn't exist at the time of Jesus, until archaeology of the last few decades confirmed its existence. The Gospel's portrayals of the temple, Pilate's court, Jesus' crown of thorns, and the mode of His execution have all also been confirmed. The list could go on and on.

The historical evidence clearly shows that the Bible is a reliable historical document. Since the Bible can be trusted in areas that we can check (its history), then this gives us a reason to trust it in areas that we cannot check (its claims for inspiration).


The Uniqueness of the Bible

The internal evidence test reveals the Bible's amazing consistency. The Bible was written by over 40 authors, in 3 languages, on 3 continents, over a span of 1,500 years, and covers hundreds of controversial subjects. Yet, the authors all spoke with agreement; there are no contradictions. [5] From Genesis to Revelation, there is one unfolding story -- God's redemption of mankind.


Bible Prophecy

The external and internal evidence tests do not prove the Bible's inspiration, but do reveal that the objective evidence is consistent with and supports the Bible's claims to be a divine book (because any book from God that claims to be inerrant should be reliable and consistent with itself). Bible prophecy, however, can only be explained by divine revelation and inspiration.

There are hundreds of specific prophecies in the Bible which have been literally fulfilled, in many cases centuries after the completion of the Bible. Any attempt to late-date these prophecies is impossible -- there is a copy of every Old Testament book but one from before 150 BC, and hundreds of these prophecies were not fulfilled until centuries later. For a detailed discussion of this area, see Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell.

Some prophecies fulfilled by Jesus are Micah 5:2, which revealed where He would be born; Isaiah 53 detailed His suffering, work at the cross, and resurrection; Psalm 22 is striking prophecy of the crucifixion.

Norman Geisler explains Ezekiel's prediction that the city of Tyre "would be destroyed and its ruins cast into the sea (26:2). This provoked scoffing because, when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Tyre, he left the ruins right where they fell -- on the land. But 200 years later, Alexander the Great attacked Tyre and the inhabitants withdrew to an island just off the coast for safety. In order to reach them, Alexander threw all of the debris, stones, timbers, dust, and everything else, into the sea to build a causeway that would reach the island." [6] If events so far in the future can be accurately predicted, certainly the events of the past have been accurately recorded!


Has the text of the Bible Been Altered Over the Centuries?

One last test investigates whether or not the Bible has been corrupted down through the ages in its transmission. If it has been significantly changed, then it would not be relevant to us since inspiration does not extend to any manuscript copy. How can we know whether or not the Bible we have today is the same as what was written?

This question is answered by the bibliographical test. This test looks at the number of existing manuscript copies there are, their agreement with each other concerning the text that they are copies of, and the time interval between these copies and the date of the original writing. All scholars agree that this test has conclusively established that the biblical text which we have now is nearly identical to what was originally recorded (for both Old and New Testaments).

Sir Frederick Kenyon, who was second to none in issuing statements about manuscripts, said this about the New Testament: "The interval between the dates of original composition and the earliest existing evidence [i.e. the earliest copies we have] become so small to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially has having been written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and general integrity of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established." [7] He further said that "No fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading."

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which date from 200 B.C. to A.D. 68, included a copy of every Old Testament book except for one. Comparison with the texts of a thousand years later shows little or no variation and change between them.

 

[voiceoftheshires]

Voice oftheshires

I rest my case as you come in with Yeshua (name for God) an off shoot of the Jewish faith. Again saying only Yeshua is perfect lol.

I know you well. Not you personally but the followers. You possibly know me too by another name.

Anyway good to see you pop in. Used to enjoy my debates with you guys.

Hoot Owl

Yeshua is specifically the name of which the Anglicised, Greek form is Jesus and these two names refer to the same person. Only Yeshua lived a sin free life, therefore only he is in perfect communion with God, therefore his words are perfect and where there is dispute take precedence over all over scripture.

That aside you have the better of me, since I recognise you not

 

[nathan3]

No. But I think people can have contradictions in how we understand, a thing. It's just people that fall short , not the Word.

 

[Blackson]

I saw a great post on here the other day that covers this nicely.

It said about a group of people going to a football game, and these people all sat in different seats around the arena. Everyone saw the same game and saw the same result however because of how everyone in the group saw it from different perspectives and vantage points they all might have very different accounts of the same game.

I'm not doing the post justice with how I wrote it but it made great sense to me.

Even As an atheist I think that argument is a very valid one. The bible is bound to have contradiction considering there was no collaboration between the authors.

If there was no contradiction or differing of opinion then they may as we'll had just one guy write it all rather than include various opinions and viewpoints.

To say that the Bible has contradictions is to say that the Bible has errors. However, the Bible is the only book we have on earth that has no contradictions and contextual error, If any thing it may be the mistake of typists for leaving out some words and spellings, but not actually differing opinions. I cannot quote a verse to prove what I am saying because there is no such verse that shows error unless those who say it has contradiction can quote few such verses.

 

[AvalonXQ]

However, the Bible is the only book we have on earth that has no contradictions and contextual error,

Can you give an example of a contradiction in the Quran?

 

[Blackson]

View attachment 58221

The bible has no contradictions.

Hey! you are frightening us now.

 

[Praus]

And I think it is time God or Satan did their own dirty work.

I see that you've been banned.

 

[Graybeard]

I see that you've been banned.

Thank the Mods for that......I believe Satan was attempting to infiltrate and cause doubt and division...."it" had no place here.

 

[p_rehbein]

If that were true, then why didn't you even give me one example? The reason I started with numerical contradictions is that it's awfully hard to read 2 different numbers as being the same... it doesn't leave much room for "a second interpretation".

It's all about understanding the difference between a "contradiction," and different styles of writing........

NOW, had any of the Gospels or Epistles state that Jesus was NOT Resurrected...........THAT WOULD BE A CONTRADICTION!

I responded directly to the Scriptures YOU gave........when I read them, I understand how they are in agreement, because you don't, does not mean THEY aren't.